posted on July 1, 2007 02:19:12 PM new
climate claims...
Again proving Gore in it for the money & publicity
Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny
(http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article)
June 30, 2007
BY JAMES M. TAYLOR
In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.
If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.
A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.
Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.
For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."
Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."
Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.
Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.
Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."
Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.
Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.
Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on July 1, 2007 02:44:07 PM new
Few should be surprised by this info. lol lol After all the 'inventor of Internet' only THINKS he knows anything. He continues to reinvent himself....and he has not improved much since he first started.....only starting eating more. And still sweats like no one else.
So many reports/statements from scientists about what nonsense gore's whole movie is.
Non-factual...using 'guesses' rather than facts....totally unproven 'evidence'. LOL
Even the 15 year old, who discounted gores garbage, was in the news.
Maybe he'll loose some weight and decided to run for the WH....since he's had his 15 minutes of 'fame'. And it's over.
posted on July 1, 2007 06:17:11 PM new
When you know you're wrong always attack the person's weight...after all, that gives so much more credence to your assertions....HAHAHhahahahaha!!!!!!
posted on July 1, 2007 06:39:54 PM new
If gore is so knowledgeable about the facts as he claims, why is it he refuses to debate the issues as he has presented them?
A senior fellow at The Heartland Institute. Now there's an unbiased source if ever I've come across one.
Prof, not even you can be that shallow. If you read the article completely he cited the following sources:
American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate
Nature magazine
and lets not forget
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
hurricane experts Chris Landsea & William Grayray
the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences
And if you looked into the Heartland Institute:
The Heartland Institute is a national nonprofit research and education organization, tax exempt under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code, and founded in Chicago in 1984. It is not affiliated with any political party, business, or foundation.
Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.
When you know you're wrong always attack the person's weight...after all, that gives so much more credence to your assertions
Another lesson perfected by the left
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on July 1, 2007 06:41:21 PM new
(Chicago IL - June 29, 2007) On June 28, in an historic move the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released the expert review comments and responses to its latest assessment of the science of climate change. The IPCC report is the primary source of data for Al Gore's movie and book titled "An Inconvenient Truth."
Many of the comments by the reviewers are strongly critical of claims contained in the final report, and they are directly at odds with the so-called "scientific consensus" touted by Gore and others calling for immediate government action. For example, the following comment by Eric Steig appears in Second Order Draft Comments, Chapter 6; section 6-42:
In general, the certainty with which this chapter presents our understanding of abrupt climate change is overstated. There is confusion between hypothesis and evidence throughout the chapter, and a great deal of confusion on the differences between an abrupt "climate change" and possible, hypothetical causes of such climate changes.
"It is now abundantly clear why Al Gore will not accept our debate challenge. The supposed scientific consensus on global warming is pure fiction. Hopefully, the public release of comments and responses will enable the debate over global warming to turn to facts and less fiction," stated Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit think tank based in Chicago.
The Heartland Institute has been running ads in national newspapers calling on Al Gore to debate Lord Christopher Monckton, a prominent global warming "skeptic." Starting today, the institute says it is now including Dennis Avery, an economist and coauthor of a book on global warming that is on the New York Times nonfiction best seller list, who Gore has also refused to debate.
To view the IPCC expert comments, go to
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on July 1, 2007 07:02:15 PM new
GLOBAL WARMING TEST
Test your knowledge and common sense in this simple 10-question test.
Caution: This section contains sound science, not media hype, and may therefore contain material not suitable for young people trying to get a good grade in political correctness.
posted on July 1, 2007 08:27:00 PM new
What I really have to laugh at Bear is the fact that while your state is being hammered by what may be the partial results of global warming, you continue to hide your head in the sand (mud?) and make this a political issue.
In 1991, legislative leaders in Texas assembled the Joint Select Committee on Toxic Air Emissions and the Greenhouse Effect to study the statewide effects of global warming and prudent responses. After months of testimony and research, the committee’s final interim report to the 72nd Legislature predicted how climate change could:
Increase storm activity
Increase coastal erosion
Threaten coastal fisheries
Increase drought conditions and threaten water supplies
Increase the duration and severity of heat spells
Since 1991, several statewide studies have supported the committee’s findings utilizing more sophisticated models. Today, a decade after the committee’s report, Texas has failed to develop a statewide action plan to address global warming. Yet, over half of US states have developed their own plans.
The latest statewide study by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Ecological Society of America finds that in the next 100 years, summer temperatures in Texas could increase by 3-7ºF and minimum winter temperatures could increase from 3ºF to about 10ºF. The UCS/ESA study also finds that the Texas gulf coast will experience accelerated sea level rise, lower groundwater availability and intensified weather events like droughts and floods.
posted on July 2, 2007 02:44:41 AM new
It doesn't matter WHO funds the studies/fact finding studies....what matters is the RESULTS they come up with.
Disprove them. Nope...the liberals can't even admit that IF, as they say, global warming is changing all this weather so drastically, then why in the world didn't the terrible hurricanes that hit like katrina did. LOL LOL LOL
Guess global warming only happens to 'change' the weather and cause this terrible damage WHEN the liberals WANT it to. LOL LOL LOL
The last hurricane season had NO big hurricanes. Go figure. Global warming took a vacation. lol
Scientists have said over and over...that global warming had NOTHING to do with the hurricanes. But, of course, they're not 'gores' so called scientists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 2, 2007 02:45 AM ]
posted on July 2, 2007 02:51:20 AM newScientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming
Same Data, Different Conclusions
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 20, 2006; Page A03
A year after Hurricane Katrina and other major storms battered the U.S. coast, the question of whether hurricanes are becoming more destructive because of global warming has become perhaps the most hotly contested question in the scientific debate over climate change.
Academics have published a flurry of papers either supporting or debunking the idea that warmer temperatures linked to human activity are fueling more intense storms. The issue remains unresolved, but it has acquired a political potency that has made both sides heavily invested in the outcome.
Paradoxically, the calm hurricane season in the Atlantic so far this year has only intensified the argument.
Both sides are using identical data but coming up with conflicting conclusions. There are several reasons.
Using different time periods to chart hurricane patterns can influence the results. Different academic backgrounds also affect how researchers interpret the data. Climate scientists tend to test hypotheses and examine the underlying causes of climate variability over time, which makes them more comfortable identifying broad climate trends. Hurricane forecasters tend to be more focused on predicting the intensity and paths of individual storms, and often focus on factors such as wind shear and water temperature that can cause a storm to shift within a matter of days or hours, so they tend to emphasize natural variability over long-term climate shifts.
Inevitably, the scientific debate has spilled into the policy arena. Former vice president Al Gore took up the issue in his recent film "An Inconvenient Truth," suggesting that Katrina and other severe storms reflect a broader trend clearly traceable to global warming. Last week, environmentalist Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, released a report that called the quarter of a million Katrina evacuees who will not return home "the world's first climate refugees."
On the other side, Myron Ebell, energy and global warming policy director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said these pronouncements amount to political opportunism. In contrast to activists who quickly attributed last year's hurricanes to climate change, he said, his side is not ready to claim victory just because this year has brought fewer intense storms.
"I don't think that says much one way or another about whether global warming causes hurricanes," said Ebell, whose group receives funding from the fossil-fuel industry.
Scientists who doubt a link with global warming say this year's average Atlantic hurricane season simply shows how variable weather can be. Christopher Landsea, who works in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Hurricane Research Division, published an opinion piece in the journal Science late last month in which he argued that data indicating that recent hurricanes have been more intense than those in the 1970s and '80s may be based on flawed information. Measurement technologies were less sophisticated then and may have underestimated the strength of earlier storms, he said.
"We're woefully underestimating how strong hurricanes were back then," said Landsea, who wrote that five tropical cyclones that were originally classified as Category 3 would be rated as Category 4 today. "I'm sure it's confusing to the general public, since you have different scientists saying different things. We're all trying to figure out the same thing: What's going on with our climate?"
In contrast to the Atlantic, the Pacific is experiencing a much more active than usual storm season this year. Earlier this month, Typhoon Saomai, the strongest to hit China in half a century, crashed into the country's southeast coast and flattened tens of thousands of homes. It killed more than 300 people and prompted the evacuation of more than 1.5 million.
A number of factors might account for the fact that this year's Atlantic season, which runs from June 1 to Nov. 1, has so far produced far fewer named storms than last year's record-breaking season, and not a single hurricane. Sea surface temperatures are not as warm this year -- the ocean needs to be at least 79 degrees Fahrenheit to sustain a hurricane -- and the atmosphere is more stable because of clouds of Saharan dust that have swept across the Atlantic.
CONTINUED 1 2 Next >
Page 2 of 2 < Back
Scientists Disagree On Link Between Storms, Warming
Studies supporting a link between global warming and storm intensity keep coming. The latest will be published this week by Florida State University geography professor James B. Elsner in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. Elsner found that average air temperatures during hurricane season predict the Atlantic Ocean's surface temperatures, not vice versa, which he said means it is "much more likely the atmosphere is warming the ocean" and helping create more severe storms.
And Judith A. Curry, of Georgia Tech's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, who co-authored a paper last year suggesting that rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by more intense hurricanes, has challenged Landsea's critique. She said Landsea and like-minded researchers have not "done the hard work" to reanalyze the entire historic hurricane database to determine whether it really is skewed. She does not go as far as Elsner, however, saying his paper identifies "an interesting statistical relationship" but does not physically explain how warmer air might be heating the Atlantic.
Curry's work, in turn, has been challenged by Phil Klotzbach, a research associate at Colorado State University, who published a paper in May suggesting that, since 1986, there has been no global trend in hurricane intensity. Klotzbach's paper, in Geophysical Research Letters, looked at a 20-year period rather than the 35-year period Curry and others examined, which explains how he reached different conclusions.
"At this point, we haven't seen any significant correlation" between hurricanes and climate change, he said.
MIT professor Kerry Emmanuel -- who helped spark the debate with a paper in the journal Nature a year ago suggesting that warmer sea surface temperatures had spawned more destructive storms -- has made an effort to correct for measurement biases in his studies.
He is still criticized by researchers such as Landsea, but Emmanuel responded in an interview that the bias in the underlying data "isn't very large." He added that he and other researchers in Europe have found such a strong link between warming sea surface temperatures and more intense hurricanes that, "You literally have to argue that the correlation is an accident. That to me is improbable."
Curry noted that the hurricane question has focused Americans on global warming far more than other climate-related developments, such as melting glaciers in Greenland. "Katrina was sort of the 9/11 of global warming," she said in an interview. "It was a lot more real and immediate. It had more of a real socioeconomic impact in the way the melting of glaciers doesn't."
Many environmental groups have seized on the public's concern, arguing that 2005's brutal hurricane season highlights the dangers of global warming. The advocacy group Environmental Defense has a new Web site devoted to "Hurricanes and Climate Change," including "11 Facts That Will Blow You Away."
Meanwhile, William Hooke, who directs the American Meteorological Society's policy program, said that whatever the answer turns out to be, "We ought not to lose sight of the fact that we're doing a poor job of protecting ourselves against the hurricanes we have now."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And yet the liberals and even their elected leaders keep LYING to Americans by saying it's 'all decided'. LOL LOL LOL
NO it's NOT. There is NOT agreement.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 2, 2007 02:57 AM ]
posted on July 2, 2007 07:14:23 AM new
"""It doesn't matter WHO funds the studies/fact finding studies....what matters is the RESULTS they come up with."""
posted on July 2, 2007 09:19:47 AM newand make this a political issue.
Talk to gore about making a political issue of the issue. All it is is becoming a money making scam for him.
The latest statewide study by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Ecological Society of America finds that in the next 100 years, summer temperatures in Texas could increase by 3-7ºF
Pure speculation with no evidence to sustain then conclusion.
The UCS/ESA study also finds that the Texas gulf coast will experience accelerated sea level rise, lower groundwater availability and intensified weather events like droughts and floods.
So they have a crystal ball to forecast the future? More unsubstantiated speculation.
Prof, I'm a native Texas (& proud of it), the weather cycle we are having now is not a new occurrence, I've seen it several times before.
Surprise, surprise! Heartland has received funding from the Tobacco Industry and Exxon.
And how many liberal advancing causes has Theresa Heinz funded?
And how many massive Hurricanes attributed to global warming were forecasted by these same scientists for the 2006 season?
Answer: NONE
As been proven by credible scientific studies, the earth is in the midst of a normal heating/cooling cycle that has been occurring for thousands of years.
posted on July 2, 2007 09:37:44 AM new
One thing bear, how come The latest statewide study by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Ecological Society of America is
Pure speculation with no evidence to sustain then(sic) conclusion.
but a pdf clearly designed and titled to be used as a position paper not for scientists but for public policy makers (read:POLITICIANS) is
The real science???
just curious on what basis you determine "real science"...must be if you agree with it..and it's fake b.s. if you don't...I get it now, simple.
posted on July 2, 2007 10:33:30 AM new
"It doesn't matter WHO funds the studies/fact finding studies....what matters is the RESULTS they come up with."
You have got to be kidding. Tests can be skewed. Test results need interpretation. If the scientists doing the interpreting are funded in part by EXXON,(in other words being paid by Exxon) don't you think that would influence the interpretation? If Philip Morris funded a study which determined that cigarettes are not harmful to your health, wouldn't you be skeptical of those results?
Why are the scientists you choose to believe any more valid than the scientists (a much larger number, by the way) I choose to believe? What has the issue got to do with liberal or conservative? I know many liberals who have no concern about global warming and many conservatives who are serious environmentalists.
[ edited by coincoach on Jul 2, 2007 11:21 AM ]
posted on July 2, 2007 01:27:34 PM new
Prof, what I'm saying and what all the papers prove is there IS NO CLEAR EVIDENCE that global warming IS anything but a natural occurrence in the NORMAL cycle of Earths evolution.
There can be no consensus among scientists because ALL of the worlds scientists cannot be polled.
algore refuses to debate the topic in any way, shape or form and is strictly using the media to hype the topic and cash in on the political benefits.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on July 2, 2007 03:15:37 PM new
There is no doubt about global warming, it is something that can be measured.
The problem comes from
1) how much is due to the activities of man.
2) More importantly, what level of abatement of #1 can be possible.
The debate is complicated by the fact that in general, greenies are among the most stupid people on the planet. They come to absurd conclusions and dream up incredibly dumb "fixes". A favorite whipping boy is automobiles and the iconization of the electric car. There is not an industry on the planet that can claim the degree of improvement cars have made. Autos contribute 14% of the CO2. It takes 8 yrs (new cars replacing older ones in the fleet) for a change to run it's course. The number one contributer is the generation of electricity. So it seems a little backward to promote fleets of electric cars. Or block nuclear power for that matter.
Humorous exercise: Ask the wackiest greenie you know how Greenland got its name.
posted on July 5, 2007 12:48:24 PM newWhat I really have to laugh at Bear is the fact that while your state is being hammered by what may be the partial results of global warming, you continue to hide your head in the sand (mud?) and make this a political issue.
Why are all the Evangelicals like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell not preaching the devestation in Texas is because of God's Wrath for having all those sinners in Texas.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on July 5, 2007 01:01:53 PM new
Gore's movie is an embarrassment to many scientists on his side in the same way Michael Moore movies embarrass documentary makers.
What amazes me is how twits like you can go
"KATRINA, OH MY GOD, GLOBAL WARMING"!!!!!!
When core samples show nothing anomalous about such a hurricane. IN FACT, we are nearing the end of a 1500 year cycle of "mild" hurricanes.
"OH, MY GOD! There's a HOLE IN THE OZONE"!!!!!
When it's only been there, varying in size, for AT LEAST several hundred thousand years.
When you criticize a statement put up some evidence, and not "sounds good" information or "these other 2 twits say the same".
How 'bout that Greenland problem?
[ edited by desquirrel on Jul 5, 2007 01:03 PM ]
posted on July 5, 2007 05:23:02 PM newWhat amazes me is how twits like you can go
No what is amazing is how the Republicans don't give a damn about the environment and believe global warming is not a problem. Heck Bush didn't even admit it was problem until last year.
So dumsquireel how much warmer does it have to get before you will be global warming is a problem?
How much more of the ice caps have to melt before you will be it is a problem?
Only when it is to late, will you decide I guess I should have done something 10 years ago. It is people like you that deserve to die in a heat wave or die when during a natural disaster. For your sake I hope you do not have children. I wouldn't want them growing up in an environment the Republicans helped destroy.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on July 6, 2007 10:47:34 AM new
Twitboy, the caps have "melted" AND grown MANY times over the thousands of years. Just ask any scientist who has seen core samples.
I'm planning on buying condos in Greenland. When the Vikings landed it was 12 degrees warmer. I think it's coming back!
posted on July 6, 2007 02:36:38 PM new
Quote: "Oh brother! How can anyone be dumber???!!!"
I don't know mingotree, crowfarm. But you seem to be trying for the record.
There you go again trying to prove you are right by insulting someone else's mentality instead of posting anything of value. Try to straighten up your act.
But the attractions just keep getting better......
Law Requires N.M. to Grow Its Own Pot
Updated 7:52 AM ET June 30, 2007
By DEBORAH BAKER
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) - New Mexico has a new medical marijuana law with a twist: It requires the state to grow its own.
The law, effective Sunday, not only protects medical marijuana users from prosecution _ as 11 other states do _ but requires New Mexico to oversee a production and distribution system for the drug.
"The long-term goal is that the patients will have a safe, secure supply that doesn't mean drug dealers, that doesn't mean growing their own," said Reena Szczepanski, director of Drug Policy Alliance New Mexico.
--------------
Further proof craws needs to move to NM & finish destroying what brain cells it has is not needed.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on July 7, 2007 09:10:11 AM new
It is entirely proper to call someone "stupid" if they are indeed stupid. Ignorance and stupidity are not the same.
Example:
Suppose a conspiracy nut parrots something he heard on the conspiracy network:
"LHO did not have time to fire 3 shots at Kennedy".
The parroting is out of ignorance. Now, you point out that in the CBS news re-creation of the event after the Warren commission report, a trained person had more than enough time and add that a 90 yr old (!) firearms instructor in 2006 had more than enough time for 3 accurate shots, then repeating the chant is STUPID.
Live Earth London's Glacial Pacing
Mixing Music and a Serious Message Gives Concert a Clunky Rhythm
By Glenda Cooper
Special to The Washington Post
Sunday, July 8, 2007; D04
LONDON, July 7 -- "If you want to save the planet, I want you to start jumping up and down!" Thus Madonna revealed her plan to combat global warming. Clad in a black satin leotard, she gyrated with dancers and simulated sex with an amplifier and a guitar. Along with the Foo Fighters, the 48-year-old Queen of Pop transformed a Live Earth concert that at times had seemed earnest and slow.
Security was tight Saturday at the Wembley Stadium event, which fell on the second anniversary of the deadly terrorist attacks on London's mass transit system and only a week after a plot to set off car bombs in the capital failed. The weather -- which in recent weeks has driven thousands from their homes because of flooding -- stayed fair for the afternoon.
The interspersing of musical numbers with lectures on climate change gave much of the show a staccato feel. The Black Eyed Peas were the first band to really get the crowd dancing; other early big draws were Metallica, Keane, Duran Duran and the Red Hot Chili Peppers, as the crowd awaited the appearance of the headliner, Madonna.
It's an inconvenient truth, but mixing rock with recycling is awkward.
In a TV interview earlier this week, Matt Bellamy of the band Muse mocked the event as "private jets for climate change."
John Buckley of Carbon Footprint, an organization that helps companies reduce their carbon dioxide emissions, said Saturday that Live Earth will produce about 74,500 tons of the gas.
"We would have to plant 100,000 trees to offset the effect of Live Earth," he said, speaking by telephone. But, he added, "if you can reach 2 billion people and raise awareness, that's pretty fantastic."
Certainly, on the way into the show, some of the 65,000 people who'd spent $110 on a ticket appeared unaware of the seven-point pledge that Al Gore, the event's chief impresario, had asked all spectators to make. Asked about it, they offered blank looks and said they were there for Madonna (whose annual carbon footprint, according to Buckley, is 1,018 tons -- about 92 times the 11 tons an average person uses per year).
"I'm not even sure who Gore is," said Georgie Simpson, 35, from Ipswich, in eastern England. "I saw Gore on TV," added Sue Bourner, 38, a health service manager from Hampshire. "But frankly, I think it's cheeky of Americans to come over here and lecture us. They are the worst polluters."
The organizers were determined that the crowd not go away ignorant, however. Big banners asking people to "answer the call" surrounded the stage. And a series of public information films featuring celebrities such as Penelope Cruz urged people to turn thermostats down and carpool while, in between, montages of happy animals were contrasted with pollution-belching power stations.
Occasionally there was a surreal experience of, for example, listening to the reunited, veteran rock group Genesis sing "Turn It On Again" while the video images appeared to suggest it was time to Turn It Off. And singer-songwriters Damien Rice and David Gray promised everyone to make a difference -- before singing that anthem to predestination, "Que Sera Sera."
Will the event make a difference after the last burger in biodegradable packaging is eaten and the stage made of recycled oil drums is packed away? Steve Howard, CEO of the Climate Group, a partner in Live Earth, said that it would.
"I think that this will be very inspiring and show people that you can put on concerts and tours in a much greener way," he said. "I understand concerns about Madonna's carbon footprint. But nobody's perfect, and at least we are now having an interesting debate about it, which will change behavior."
Lining up at the stalls selling $40 organic cotton T-shirts proclaiming "Green Is the New Black," Andrea Covic, 26, was also optimistic. "I've come because I'm sympathetic to the message," she said. "Of course I want to see the Beastie Boys. But I do think this is a good way of getting people and the media to take climate change seriously."
But Andrew Turner, 29, who had come to see his favorite band, the Foo Fighters, was not convinced. "I already recycle and wash my clothes at 30 degrees [centigrade, about 86 degrees Fahrenheit] and turn off lights and computers," he said. "So I have a suspicion that those who are coming today are those already interested in the message. I don't know how many more it will convince."
===============
posted on July 8, 2007 01:07:15 AM new
giddy gore's garbage debunked in many ways.
==================
THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
Greenland ice yields hope on climate
DNA hints warm era didn't melt entire cap
By Colin Nickerson, Globe Staff | July 6, 2007
An international team of scientists, drilling deep into the ice layers of Greenland, has found DNA from ancient spiders and trees, evidence that suggests the frozen shield covering the immense island survived the earth's last period of global warming.
The findings, published today in the journal Science, indicate Greenland's ice may be less susceptible to the massive meltdown predicted by computer models of climate change, the article's main author said in an interview.
"If our data is correct, and I believe it is, then this means the southern Greenland ice cap is more stable than previously thought," said Eske Willerslev, research leader and professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Copenhagen. "This may have implications for how the ice sheets respond to global warming. They may withstand rising temperatures."
Scientists not involved in the study cautioned, however, that current climate change is so driven by pollution from power plants, industry, and other human activity that it is nearly impossible to draw a meaningful conclusion about the durability of Greenland's ice.
"Whatever occurred in the past almost surely occurred much more slowly," said Raymond S. Bradley, director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. "Human activity is pushing warming at a much faster rate than in the past. Change is occurring in decades or centuries, not over millennia."
A painstaking analysis of surviving genetic fragments locked in the ice of southern Greenland shows that somewhere between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, the world's largest island had a climate much like that of Northern New England, the researchers said. Butterflies fluttered over lush meadows interspersed with stands of pine, spruce, and alder.
Greenland really was green, before Ice Age glaciers enshrouded vast swaths of the Northern Hemisphere.
More controversially -- and as an example of how research in one realm of science can unexpectedly affect assumptions in another -- the discovery of microscopic bits of organic matter retrieved from ice 1.2 miles beneath the surface indicates that the ice fields of southern Greenland may be more resilient to rising global temperatures than has been forecast. The DNA could have been preserved only if the ice layers remained largely intact.
A scenario often raised by global warming specialists is that Greenland's ice trove will turn liquid in the rising temperatures of coming decades, with hundreds of trillions of gallons of water spilling into the Atlantic. This could cause ocean levels worldwide to rise anywhere from 3 to 20 feet, according to computer projections -- bad news for seaport cities like Boston.
But the discovery of organic matter in ice dating from half-a-million years ago offers evidence that the Greenland ice shield remained frozen even during the earth's last "interglacial period" -- some 120,000 years ago -- when average temperatures were 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than they are now. That's slightly higher than the average temperatures foreseen by most scientists for the end of this century, although some environmentalists warn it might get even hotter.
Researchers from the Danish-led team said the unanticipated findings appear to fly in the face of prevailing scientific views about the likely fate of Greenland's thickly-layered ice, although Willerslev stressed that the findings do not contradict the basic premise that the earth's temperature is rising to worrisome levels, with gases emitted by industry, cars, and other human activity playing a big role.
"But it suggests a problem with the [computer] models" that predict melting ice from Greenland could drown cities and destroy civilizations, according to Willerslev.
"We should remain very worried about rising sea levels," he said. "We know that during the last interglacial, sea levels rose by 5 meters or more. But this must have come from sources additional to Greenland, such as Antarctic ice. It does not appear the whole [Greenland] sheet will melt."
Computer models suggest that Greenland and Antarctica will be the main contributors to rising sea levels as the climate warms. (The Arctic won't affect sea level, because its ice already floats in the ocean.)
Some scientists not involved in the study drew a conclusion very different from that of the Danish-led team .
"The raw results of this study are very impressive -- southern Greenland was unglaciated sometime during the last million years or so," said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist with National Aeronautics and Space Administration 's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "I would argue that this implies a more unstable ice sheet, not the opposite."
Schmidt said that during the more recent warming period, most but not all of the ice might have disappeared from southern Greenland, leaving a thin layer that would have been sufficient to preserve the DNA.
The organic matter found in ice cores taken from a southern Greenland drilling site known as Dye 3 represent s the oldest-ever authenticated DNA found by scientists to date, with fragments of beetles, tree bark, prehistoric spiders, and other life verified independently in laboratories in Denmark, Canada, and Germany.
"The ice sheet served as a deep freezer, preserving organic materials for amazingly long periods," said Martin Sharp, a University of Alberta glaciologist who participated in the Greenland research.
Scientists were able to isolate only about 1.6 ounces of organic matter from the ice at the bottom of the core sample, according to Enrico Cappellini, a researcher specializing in ancient proteins at Britain's University of York.
But that was enough to extract genetic traces of long-vanished plants and insects, enabling scientists to envision in fine detail a prehistoric landscape.
"The genetic material presents a biological environment that is completely different from the Greenland we see today," said Willerslev. "We found grain, pine, yew, and alder. We found traces of spiders, beetles, ancient butterflies."
The identifications were made by comparisons with genetic material from existing species.
Analysis of the insect mitochondria, cellular components that contain genomes that can be used to date DNA, as well as amino acids, indicate d that the creatures were at least 450,000 years old. Uncertainties with dating, however, leave the possibility that the DNA dated only as far back as the last interglacial period.
The identification of such relatively well-preserved genetic material beneath ice sheets was exciting news for biologists. Ten percent of the earth's surface has been covered by deep ice for tens of thousands of years. "We could be opening up a frozen world of new discoveries," said Cappellini, the University of York researcher.
In terms of its name, Greenland was the original snow job.
Erik the Red -- a famous Viking banished first from Norway and then Iceland for murdering his neighbors -- sailed his longship to the uninhabited island in 982 AD. Showing an intuitive flair for PR, Erik sent back word of a bountiful "green land" as a way of enticing others to follow him to fjords at the southwestern tip of the island. In medieval times, the climate in the region was just warm enough to permit cultivation of some rugged crops and the raising of livestock.
The Nordic settlements -- the first European presence in the New World -- survived for nearly 500 years before mysteriously disappearing. Historians speculate that either the inhabitants starved as Greenland grew colder or they were killed by Inuit, who appeared on the scene around 1200 AD.
posted on July 8, 2007 06:36:43 AM new
We watched some of the Live Earth concert and enjoyed it. I view it as a positive experience because it's not often we get to see two billion people united worldwide, all smiling and having fun while trying to get a positive message out. There is so much negativity and cynicism these days with constant talk of corruption and war so events like this are welcomed. Music is universal - not everyone wants to hear the beat of war drums. Despite some of the criticism, I think the good from this concert outweighs the bad.
posted on July 8, 2007 06:50:37 AM new
"Researchers from the Danish-led team said the unanticipated findings appear to fly in the face of prevailing scientific views about the likely fate of Greenland's thickly-layered ice, although Willerslev stressed that the findings DO NOT CONTRADICT the basic premise that the earth's temperature is rising to worrisome levels, with gases emitted by industry, cars, and other human activity playing a big role."
Even if the study results are correct, and I have no reason to believe they are not, it does not change the fact that the future of our planet is being affected, as one of the study scientists said himself. Whether human pollution contributes 10%, 50% or 100% towards this problem, it is a problem that needs to be addressed, not made fun of. Whether you think Al Gore is a jerk or a saint, it is foolish to be cavalier about this issue.
only THINKS he knows anything. He continues to reinvent himself....and he has not improved much since he first started.....only starting eating more. And still sweats like no one else. 
