CNN Meteorologist disses Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"

[redguru]

Windows Media Video

From NewsBusters
CNN Meteorologist: ‘Definitely Some Inaccuracies’ in Gore Film
By Paul Detrick | October 4, 2007 - 11:35 ET

CNN Meteorologist Rob Marciano clapped his hands and exclaimed, "Finally," in response to a report that a British judge might ban the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" from UK schools because, according to "American Morning," "it is politically biased and contains scientific inaccuracies."

"There are definitely some inaccuracies," Marciano added. "The biggest thing I have a problem with is this implication that Katrina was caused by global warming."

Marciano went on to explain that, "global warming does not conclusively cause stronger hurricanes like we've seen," pointing out that "by the end of this century we might get about a 5 percent increase."

The case stems from a father's claims that the film is brainwashing propaganda, who told The Telegraph, "I am determined to prevent my children from being subjected to political spin in the classroom."

The Business and Media Institute has extensively critiqued the media's coverage of global warming in Fire & Ice, which covers a hundred years of coverage of global warming. While journalists have warned of climate change for more than 100 years, the warnings switched from global cooling to warming to cooling and warming again.

UPDATE: Marciano also sarcastically said, "the Oscars, they give out awards for fictional films as well."

—Paul Detrick is a Researcher at the Business and Media Institute.

 

[Lestat]

classic. you find one or two innacuracies and use it to invalidate the entire theory.

pretty simple minded if you ask me. Science is a body of knowledge, always subject to crique, debate, and update. Just because 'An Inconvenient Truth' or any other theory on global warming isn't 100% correct, doesn't mean that global warming isn't in fact taking place and is a danger to humankind.

 

[redguru]

The entire film is fraught with inaccuracies, and has an agenda. Using it as a text without caveatting it's political motivation, disregarding that it doesn't even cross the threshold of theory and is just a postulation is callous and brainwashing at best.

 

[redguru]

Let me rephrase my previous statement in that Global warming is occurring, yes.
That mankind caused it or has the ability to rectify it is really in doubt. using propaganda films as a primary school text without an opposing viewpoint is beyond the pale.

 

[redguru]

It's as dogmatic as any religion. And we know what you think of religion.

 

[Lestat]

I'm not sure what the opposing viewpoint would be if you do admit that based on data we have, that global warming is occuring.

Is the opposing viewpoint that it isn't that bad? Its not going to threaten life on earth?

I don't understand how it is a political issue, I see how it is an economic one, it costs more to handle waste and gasses in a way that doesn't imapact the ecology of the earth. Or even worse, certain types of manufacturing would be all but impossible which can have a huge economic impact.

I see it as this. People really only care about things that happen to them, or sometimes their children. The negative impact of global warming is a few generations out, of course by the time you actually see the oceans start to rise and other things go wrong it will be too late, and people like Al Gore are trying to raise awareness to this fact.

 

[Wulfgar]

honestly it is stupid to argue agaisnt an inconvienient truth.

anyone with half a brain knows huge coal burning plants can not in any way be good for the environment
wasting energy is NOT good for the planet
old technology is NOT good for the environment
being irresponsible with energy is NOT good for the environment
etc

people need to clean their shit up
end of story

 

[-SD-]

I'm not sure what the opposing viewpoint would be if you do admit that based on data we have, that global warming is occuring.

Is the opposing viewpoint that it isn't that bad? Its not going to threaten life on earth?

I don't understand how it is a political issue, I see how it is an economic one, it costs more to handle waste and gasses in a way that doesn't imapact the ecology of the earth. Or even worse, certain types of manufacturing would be all but impossible which can have a huge economic impact.

I see it as this. People really only care about things that happen to them, or sometimes their children. The negative impact of global warming is a few generations out, of course by the time you actually see the oceans start to rise and other things go wrong it will be too late, and people like Al Gore are trying to raise awareness to this fact.

Isnt the earth considered to be coming out of the last ice age, in the grand scheme of how old the earth is? Or the sun might be getting hotter? Ive never heard anything about either one of these hypotheses being ruled out as a contributor to global warming. People have to take into consideration all possibilities, since its science and all.

 

[redguru]

I'm not sure what the opposing viewpoint would be if you do admit that based on data we have, that global warming is occuring.

Is the opposing viewpoint that it isn't that bad? Its not going to threaten life on earth?

I don't understand how it is a political issue, I see how it is an economic one, it costs more to handle waste and gasses in a way that doesn't imapact the ecology of the earth. Or even worse, certain types of manufacturing would be all but impossible which can have a huge economic impact.

I see it as this. People really only care about things that happen to them, or sometimes their children. The negative impact of global warming is a few generations out, of course by the time you actually see the oceans start to rise and other things go wrong it will be too late, and people like Al Gore are trying to raise awareness to this fact.

Global warming is occurring yes, is it cyclical? Is there anything that we can do to affect it, in either direction? Is it hubris to think that mankind has an effect on anything as large as global environmental conditions? Isn't it funny that Gore tools around in a private jet to tout the harm that joe schmoe in his automobile causes to the environment?

It's a religion, it has all the facets of religion.

Sin.
saviors,
preachers
and commandments.

 

[redguru]

honestly it is stupid to argue agaisnt an inconvienient truth.

anyone with half a brain knows huge coal burning plants can not in any way be good for the environment
wasting energy is NOT good for the planet
old technology is NOT good for the environment
being irresponsible with energy is NOT good for the environment
etc

people need to clean their shit up
end of story

i agree, so lets build nuclear power plants and replace every coal burning plant with clean nuclear.

 

[-SD-]

i agree, so lets build nuclear power plants and replace every coal burning plant with clean nuclear.

CAnt do that bor, its against the 78393th commandment of the 1st Church of Environmentalism.

 

[JonPee]

I don't have a hard stance on global warming, but I find it hard to believe anything Al Gore says.

 

[Lestat]

Global warming is occurring yes, is it cyclical? Is there anything that we can do to affect it, in either direction? Is it hubris to think that mankind has an effect on anything as large as global environmental conditions? Isn't it funny that Gore tools around in a private jet to tout the harm that joe schmoe in his automobile causes to the environment?

It's a religion, it has all the facets of religion.

Sin.
saviors,
preachers
and commandments.

I'm not sure if you've seen the movie, but even before the movie, I knew about taking ice samples and being able to see what the atmospheric content was at various times. Its like looking at a fossil record of the air, except without all of the gaps.

Anyway, it very apparent that humankind has made some profound changes on the environment.

Yes, the climate seems cyclical, yes, the earth has gone through ice ages and will likely go into more.

But those ice ages developed over millions of years, not thousands! That is the whole point, we are rapidly making profound changes.

And I see how you can try to correlate this to religion, but its not, its science, and its open for new evidence to be introduced at any time and theories to be refined. There are no saviors that i know of, its really up to us as a race, do we want to stop what we've been doing? Do we even care? Many people don't and I can understand why! So what if we fucke dup the earth so that in 100,000 years humans can't live as they do today? That's not a concern for many people because the people here today won't be around to know or care about it.

 

[Lestat]

I consider myself to be an environmentalist and I have no problem with nuclear powerplants. I think ideally, we would be able to harness and use solar power for everything, eventually that will run out too, but its the longest term plan we have with no real by products.

Nuclear by products are the biggest issue for me. Where do we put the used fuel cells, etc.

 

[-SD-]

who gives a shit. Im getting a job at Chevron anyhow when I graduate.

 

[Lestat]

Isnt the earth considered to be coming out of the last ice age, in the grand scheme of how old the earth is? Or the sun might be getting hotter? Ive never heard anything about either one of these hypotheses being ruled out as a contributor to global warming. People have to take into consideration all possibilities, since its science and all.

i hear ya, people use to take into consideration the possibility that the earth was flat too, but you'd be hard pressed to find any serious scientist that wants to consider THAT potential possibility.

 

[-SD-]

i hear ya, people use to take into consideration the possibility that the earth was flat too, but you'd be hard pressed to find any serious scientist that wants to consider THAT potential possibility.

So are you saying that the possibility of the earth coming out of an ice age or the sun getting hotter are easily dismissed because its so obviously not caused by those factors? Or are you saying the scientists havent looked hard enough at those theories because of current global warming dogma?

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Propaganda is fun!!

 

[Longhorn85]

people need to clean their shit up
end of story

people like Al Gore who expend hundreds of times more energy than the average citizen need to stop using global warming scare tactics to get rich.

Glad to see holes finally being poked in his bullshit by a major network. Something many have known all along.

 

[redguru]

Chilly reception for debate offer

October 5, 2007
STEVE HUNTLEY [email protected]

Seven hundred thousand dollars is a lot of money to spend to try to get someone to talk to you and not get an answer.

That's how much the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based libertarian think tank, has forked over in six months for advertisements in national newspapers trying to persuade Al Gore to debate one of its experts on global warming issues. "We have tried, repeatedly, to contact Gore directly, with registered letters and calls to his office, and have never received a reply," says Joseph Bast, Heartland president.

A spokeswoman for Gore told me by e-mail that Heartland is an oil-company-funded group that denies that global warming is real and caused by human activities.

"The debate has shifted to how to solve the climate crisis, not if there is one," said Kalee Kreider. "It does not make sense for him to engage in a dialogue with them at this time."

The issue is a bit more complicated than that. What Bast wants is for Gore to debate one of three authorities who dispute the former vice president's assertion that global warming is a crisis that requires an immediate, hugely expensive response potentially damaging to the U.S. and world economies.

One of the Heartland experts is Dennis Avery, an economist, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and co-author, with Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, of the book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. As you might guess from that title, Avery sees global warming as a natural phenomenon in which "there may be a human factor but if so it's small." He describes the warming as "moderate" and says there's been no warming since 1998. "Where's the crisis?"

When you talk with Avery, he cites numbers on carbon dioxide and temperature change and dates of previous warming periods, such as during Roman and medieval times. A layman like me soon finds himself in deep water, and you know someone on the other side of the issue will cite other sources, such as a U.N. panel on climate change that says most of the warming since the mid-20th century is likely due to greenhouse gases.

But the point is that Gore and his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" aren't the last word. In March, the New York Times reported that while they praise Gore for raising awareness about warming, a number of scientists see exaggerations and errors in some of his assertions. "They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism," the Times wrote. For example, Gore forecasts sea levels rising up to 20 feet, flooding parts of New York and Florida. But the U.N. panel's actual estimate is that seas will rise 7 to 23 inches in this century.

As for the Gore camp's statement about Exxon funding, Bast says those contributions are too little to control Heartland policy and amount to "far less than what Heartland spends speaking out on climate change."

The Heartland case is not the first time Gore has ducked a forum. Earlier this year he canceled an interview with Denmark's largest newspaper when he learned it would include questions from Bjorn Lomborg, respected author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. "Gore's sermon is not one that will stand scrutiny," says Christopher C. Horner, another one of Heartland's debate candidates, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism.

Bast says the ad campaign will continue until March, costing a total of $1.2 million. But he won't get a debate from Gore. Still, Heartland's effort serves the worthy purpose to spotlighting the need for an informed discussion on the severity of global warming and how best to deal with it, by trying to halt it or adapt to it. Gore offers a worst-case scenario of unmitigated disaster. If he's wrong about rising sea levels, what else is he wrong about?

 

[wlmcrae]

I'm not sure if you've seen the movie, but even before the movie, I knew about taking ice samples and being able to see what the atmospheric content was at various times. Its like looking at a fossil record of the air, except without all of the gaps.

Anyway, it very apparent that humankind has made some profound changes on the environment.

Yes, the climate seems cyclical, yes, the earth has gone through ice ages and will likely go into more.

But those ice ages developed over millions of years, not thousands! That is the whole point, we are rapidly making profound changes.

And I see how you can try to correlate this to religion, but its not, its science, and its open for new evidence to be introduced at any time and theories to be refined. There are no saviors that i know of, its really up to us as a race, do we want to stop what we've been doing? Do we even care? Many people don't and I can understand why! So what if we fucke dup the earth so that in 100,000 years humans can't live as they do today? That's not a concern for many people because the people here today won't be around to know or care about it.

Actually, the records of the Lesser Dryas pollen studies (about 13,000 years ago) show that the temperature in Europe went from temperate to arctic within 3-5 years. Some of the latest research favors cataclysm theory for the changes in equilibrium of the weather patterns. (And no, this doesn't come from 'environmentalist' or 'non-environmentalist' propaganda - I'm interested in weather and follow the latest research as much as I can . . the RESEARCH, not the propaganda.)

 

[Lestat]

Actually, the records of the Lesser Dryas pollen studies (about 13,000 years ago) show that the temperature in Europe went from temperate to arctic within 3-5 years. Some of the latest research favors cataclysm theory for the changes in equilibrium of the weather patterns. (And no, this doesn't come from 'environmentalist' or 'non-environmentalist' propaganda - I'm interested in weather and follow the latest research as much as I can . . the RESEARCH, not the propaganda.)

bro it goes from temprate to sub zero temperatures in many parts of the world in a matter of months, its called seasons. we're talking about the emergence of an ice age

 

[Lestat]

So are you saying that the possibility of the earth coming out of an ice age or the sun getting hotter are easily dismissed because its so obviously not caused by those factors? Or are you saying the scientists havent looked hard enough at those theories because of current global warming dogma?

no, not easily dismissed at all. I understand that climate on earth is somewhat cyclical,I also understand that just because something happened in the past doesn't mean its going to happen the exact same way in the future. I am all for looking at ALL evidence, and modifying theories as we gain new evidence.

Take global warming out of the picture, the makeup of the atmosphere seems to have been altered very dramatically since the rise of modern civilization, that is a slight cause for concern to me since our entire eco system is dependent on all aspects of it.

Here is why I don't throw Al Gore under the bus.

I know there are very powerful forces that would love to do away with ANY environmental controls, why? Because it makes things more expensive to produce, it makes it more expensive to get fossil fuels and other natural resources from the earth. I'd like to see another side of the story, even if its fairly polarized, because I know for a fact that the economicly driven standpoints are polarized themselves.

At the end of the day I take the same attitude as most everyone else, let people fuck shit up as much as they want, I won't be around to suffer from it. Makes it easy for me do not care.

With religion its a bit different, religious dogma drives a lot of current social policy that has a direct impact on me.

 

[redguru]

So no matter how much junk science Gore throws out or made up his numbers are, his film should be used as a tool because it scares people into environmentalism? Sounds like the same arguments you would use against Organized religion.

 

[Lestat]

So no matter how much junk science Gore throws out or made up his numbers are, his film should be used as a tool because it scares people into environmentalism? Sounds like the same arguments you would use against Organized religion.

incorrect. I have yet to see what was actually "made up" in Gore numbers, people just say they were exageratted or junk, but the things I key in on are the composition of the atmosphere today as compared to various points throughout history, and average temperates, etc.

Like I said, many people like to find a few inaccuracies and let that serve as evidence to throw out the entire argument, this is not how science works, I would expect Gore's theories to be revised as we collect MORE data and learn MORE about the world, but there are certain parts I believe will hold true.

Again I have to stress, science is a body of knowledge, of living work, subject to constant scrutiny, analysis, and challenge. I'd be very interested in seeing data that contradicts Gore's data, but I haven't seen much.

 

[redguru]

From: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef

Gore's credibility is damaged early in the film when he tells the audience that, by simply looking at Antarctic ice cores with the naked eye, one can see when the American Clean Air Act was passed. Dr. Ian Clark, professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa (U of O) responds, "This is pure fantasy unless the reporter is able to detect parts per billion changes to chemicals in ice." Air over the United States doesn't even circulate to the Antarctic before mixing with most of the northern, then the southern, hemisphere air, and this process takes decades.

In fact, the correlation between CO2 and temperature that Gore speaks about so confidently is simply non-existent over all meaningful time scales. U of O climate researcher Professor Jan Veizer demonstrated that, over geologic time, the two are not linked at all. Over the intermediate time scales Gore focuses on, the ice cores show that CO2 increases don't precede, and therefore don't cause, warming. Rather, they follow temperature rise -- by as much as 800 years. Even in the past century, the correlation is poor; the planet actually cooled between 1940 and 1980, when human emissions of CO2 were rising at the fastest rate in our history.

Similarly, the fact that water vapour constitutes 95% of greenhouse gases by volume is conveniently ignored by Gore. While humanity's three billion tonnes (gigatonnes, or GT) per year net contribution to the atmosphere's CO2 load appears large on a human scale, it is actually less than half of 1% of the atmosphere's total CO2 content (750-830 GT). The CO2 emissions of our civilization are also dwarfed by the 210 GT/year emissions of the gas from Earth's oceans and land. Perhaps even more significant is the fact that the uncertainty in the measurement of atmospheric CO2 content is 80 GT -- making three GT seem hardly worth mentioning.

Statistically, Carbon dioxide emissions by humanity fall well below the threshold of error in the measurement of atmospheric carbon dioxide. if the error is +/- 80GT and humanity produces only 3GT, how is that significant?

The only "Inconvenient Truth" is, that Al Gore will never be President.

 

[Lestat]

From: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef

Gore's credibility is damaged early in the film when he tells the audience that, by simply looking at Antarctic ice cores with the naked eye, one can see when the American Clean Air Act was passed. Dr. Ian Clark, professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa (U of O) responds, "This is pure fantasy unless the reporter is able to detect parts per billion changes to chemicals in ice." Air over the United States doesn't even circulate to the Antarctic before mixing with most of the northern, then the southern, hemisphere air, and this process takes decades.

In fact, the correlation between CO2 and temperature that Gore speaks about so confidently is simply non-existent over all meaningful time scales. U of O climate researcher Professor Jan Veizer demonstrated that, over geologic time, the two are not linked at all. Over the intermediate time scales Gore focuses on, the ice cores show that CO2 increases don't precede, and therefore don't cause, warming. Rather, they follow temperature rise -- by as much as 800 years. Even in the past century, the correlation is poor; the planet actually cooled between 1940 and 1980, when human emissions of CO2 were rising at the fastest rate in our history.

Similarly, the fact that water vapour constitutes 95% of greenhouse gases by volume is conveniently ignored by Gore. While humanity's three billion tonnes (gigatonnes, or GT) per year net contribution to the atmosphere's CO2 load appears large on a human scale, it is actually less than half of 1% of the atmosphere's total CO2 content (750-830 GT). The CO2 emissions of our civilization are also dwarfed by the 210 GT/year emissions of the gas from Earth's oceans and land. Perhaps even more significant is the fact that the uncertainty in the measurement of atmospheric CO2 content is 80 GT -- making three GT seem hardly worth mentioning.

Statistically, Carbon dioxide emissions by humanity fall well below the threshold of error in the measurement of atmospheric carbon dioxide. if the error is +/- 80GT and humanity produces only 3GT, how is that significant?

The only "Inconvenient Truth" is, that Al Gore will never be President.

I'm going out and buying an SUV today!

 

[wlmcrae]

bro it goes from temprate to sub zero temperatures in many parts of the world in a matter of months, its called seasons. we're talking about the emergence of an ice age

The Lesser Dryas is called that because of the change-over of an entire climactic pattern, not just a season. 'Lesser Dryas', used to name the time period, is a type of plant the study used as an indicator - ie. the summertime vegetation changed from temperate types to types that only survive in an Arctic climate in a few years. It is tough to do pollen studies in the winter, after all! I'll see if I can find the study reference for you - it sure shocked me when I read it.

 

[crazyjoe]

classic. you find one or two innacuracies and use it to invalidate the entire theory.

pretty simple minded if you ask me. Science is a body of knowledge, always subject to crique, debate, and update. Just because 'An Inconvenient Truth' or any other theory on global warming isn't 100% correct, doesn't mean that global warming isn't in fact taking place and is a danger to humankind.

Global warming is a global political movement that only global government can bring to port. Ergo, Gores wet dream will require a (unconstitutional) *UN treaty where Congress is once again asked to perform a 'Dr Kavorkian' on the American people, our businesses and our soverignty. Albeit Congress has proven capable to 'do it on their own' with CAFE standards and all the rest.

*Treaty law is a subject all it's own. But suffice to say, IT is not a 'political wild card' for Congress and the President to invent an extra-constitutional world. However, since Truman they have with impunity.

The science against 'global warming' is still-born. Its like the arguement of the virgin birth between Catholic and Protestant. Forget the test tube, go with the money and power.(UN)

A hundred years ago Americans were seduced into Federal intervention to 'protect the vanishing frontier', hence fed gov is the greatest land holder west of Kansas, including Alaska, and the western states. Northeastern monied mineral interests , the politics behind The National Park System, sought relief from 'the problem of state self interest'. 1870 to 1900 case law gave them their cause celeb. Teddy Roosevelt turned it into a Sunday sermon.

Global warming is the 'internationalist' version of the 'vanishing America'. Only now it's the world.

They all deserve a toast with a Molitove cocktail, pardon the bolshevism.

 

[crazyjoe]

Please read the attched, the secret is out.
The NASA GISS figures that say that 1998 was the hottest on record in the US have been found to be FALSE.
Steve McIntyre, the man who broke the "Hockey Stick", analyzed the data and told NASA GISS there was a problem after Y2K.
All the years since 2000 have been overstated in terms of warmth.
The new hottest year on record in the US is 1934.
Five of the US's top 10 years for heat were in the 1920's and 30's.


http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/ 1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html

The Greenies will counterpunch saying that the US represents only 2% of the surface of the planet. That's 2% of the total area of Land plus Ocean but 6% of the Land area.

They'll also say that 0.1 - 0.15 C corrections are "statistically insignificant"

Lets take those pieces of mis-information one at a time:

1) The US is the best measured place on the planet with regards to temperature. There are some issues with heat islands that need to be corrected but generally speaking US Data is sound. Data from the US accounts for 50% of the measuring stations that NASA GISS uses to track and forecast world climate trends - it's a big deal if it's dead wrong.

2) If the corrections had been the other way the Greenies and their Media Friends would have been shouting it off the rooftops - this is pure greenwash - it is a BIG DEAL.

3) The whole Human Induced Global Warming House of Cards is starting to fall apart.

TIMBER !!!!!!!

 

[crazyjoe]

Check this out. Its a good video. It might take a little while to load. Watch part 1&2
http://www.aconvenientfiction.com/inconvenient3.html

 

[FriendlyCanadian]

I agree with redguru 100%

while we may be causing greenhouse gases, the amount that we put compared to the amount the EARTH NATURALLY puts out is so freaking minimal.

CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL PEOPLE!!!!

 

[Lestat]

good posts crazyjoe.

I am glad that much of the US was reserved as national parks too! There is plenty of unused space to build homes, cities, etc. The issue was that industry (e.g. logging, oil) would love to have ripped up those forest and left nothing.

 

[5150guy]

Please read the attched, the secret is out.
The NASA GISS figures that say that 1998 was the hottest on record in the US have been found to be FALSE.
Steve McIntyre, the man who broke the "Hockey Stick", analyzed the data and told NASA GISS there was a problem after Y2K.
All the years since 2000 have been overstated in terms of warmth.
The new hottest year on record in the US is 1934.
Five of the US's top 10 years for heat were in the 1920's and 30's.


http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/ 1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html

The Greenies will counterpunch saying that the US represents only 2% of the surface of the planet. That's 2% of the total area of Land plus Ocean but 6% of the Land area.

They'll also say that 0.1 - 0.15 C corrections are "statistically insignificant"

Lets take those pieces of mis-information one at a time:

1) The US is the best measured place on the planet with regards to temperature. There are some issues with heat islands that need to be corrected but generally speaking US Data is sound. Data from the US accounts for 50% of the measuring stations that NASA GISS uses to track and forecast world climate trends - it's a big deal if it's dead wrong.

2) If the corrections had been the other way the Greenies and their Media Friends would have been shouting it off the rooftops - this is pure greenwash - it is a BIG DEAL.

3) The whole Human Induced Global Warming House of Cards is starting to fall apart.

TIMBER !!!!!!!

Good research, I remember this guy explaining the errors in calucations based upon a change in the way the data is compiled. This is a dagger right in the heart of the hypocritical Gore camp.

I believe we need to take better care of the earth--no doubt, but Gore and his ilk are loosing credibilty on a daily basis for any one who is willing to survey the specturm of environmental experts.

Also, kudos for pointing out the US vs UN aspect of this. This could very well be the newtool de jour to force the new world order on us and to violate and disgrace the constitution.

Gore is a coward for not debating some of the experts who challenge his claims and conclusions.

 

[Megalomaniac]

good posts crazyjoe.

I am glad that much of the US was reserved as national parks too! There is plenty of unused space to build homes, cities, etc. The issue was that industry (e.g. logging, oil) would love to have ripped up those forest and left nothing.

I'm from an area that has one of the nations largest national forests. In 1887 when the forest was created the area comprised of 60% timber, today the forest is comprised of 84% timber. Most greenies would say this is good but the forest is over run by down timber and is like one huge matchstick waiting to burn. Also beetles have turned 5% into standing deads. Every year we spend more money preventing and fighting fires in it when it all could have been prevented by proper logging. No matter what any enviromentalist agrues, the proof that the best way to manage our forests is through PROPER management procedures which includes a well thought out logging plan.

 

[Lestat]

I'm from an area that has one of the nations largest national forests. In 1887 when the forest was created the area comprised of 60% timber, today the forest is comprised of 84% timber. Most greenies would say this is good but the forest is over run by down timber and is like one huge matchstick waiting to burn. Also beetles have turned 5% into standing deads. Every year we spend more money preventing and fighting fires in it when it all could have been prevented by proper logging. No matter what any enviromentalist agrues, the proof that the best way to manage our forests is through PROPER management procedures which includes a well thought out logging plan.

wow i wonder how some forests survived centuries without men around to prune them..

 

[Megalomaniac]

That first pic is of a fire that burned for 19 days while I was home. The entire valley for 80 miles was filled with smoke. The second pic shows some beetle damage(all the brown trees). Both of these things could have been prevented with proper management however the greenies would lead us to believe that logging is "bad" for the enviroment. Well lets see the stats on what a 20,000 acre fire burning for 19 days does to the enviroment.

 

[Megalomaniac]

wow i wonder how some forests survived centuries without men around to prune them..

they burned. they burned and created CO2 as they burned. Now we could let them burn like before or we could use the timber and save on the CO2 emissions. As for "needing" the trees for oxygen. One hemp tree puts out more oxygen than 30 pines, you don't see people going around saying cut the pines down and plant hemp though do you.
My entire point is EVERYTHING in america is about money. Sure there are some people out there who want the good to happen but they get ran over by the dollar. I am skeptical about everything our political leaders say, the reason is they wouldn't be there if it were for the dollar. That goes for Cheney creating a war so that his former company can make billions in no bid contracts all the way to Al Gore starting one of the largest(money wise) Non-profit organizations to "save" the enviroment. They all do it all for money.