Gore's HEAT - New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard
NEWS
|
FORUM
|
PHOTOS
|
VIDEOS
|
FULL STATS DATABASE
|
PODCAST
|
RUMOR MILL
Get Social With PatsFans.com
Early Roster Projection
Ryan's Journey Started Early
POST DRAFT PODCAST

Go Back   New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard > Off Topic Forums > Political Discussion
Forgot Password? Join PatsFans.com!
Register Blogs FAQ Members List Calendar Arcade Mark Forums Read Chat Room

WELCOME TO OUR FORUM HERE AT PATSFANS.COM!
ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW

Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-06-2006, 05:44 AM   #1
Look Up, It's Amazing
 
Harry Boy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,821
Default Gore's HEAT

Not all agree with "Mr President Wannabee"


You'll often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in a free society.

Why not give it a whirl?

Start by challenging global warming hysteria next time you're at a LoDo ****tail party and see what happens.

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807
Harry Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!

Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account
including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.

NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98

Updated 07/08/11

Help Us Reach Our Goal!

Old 06-06-2006, 06:25 AM   #2
On the Roster
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 95
Default

Since 1970, the year of the first Earth Day, America's population has increased by 42%, the country's inflation-adjusted gross domestic product has grown 195%, the number of cars and trucks in the United States has more than doubled, and the total number of miles driven has increased by 178%.

But during these 35 years of growing population, employment, and industrial production, the Environmental Protection Agency reports, the environment has substantially improved. Emissions of the six principal air pollutants have decreased by 53%. Carbon monoxide emissions have dropped from 197 million tons per year to 89 million; nitrogen oxides from 27 million tons to 19 million, and sulfur dioxide from 31 million to 15 million. Particulates are down 80%, and lead emissions have declined by more than 98%.

When it comes to visible environmental improvements, America is also making substantial progress:
• The number of days the city of Los Angeles exceeded the one-hour ozone standard has declined from just under 200 a year in the late 1970s to 27 in 2004.
• The Pacific Research Institute's Index of Leading Environmental Indicators shows that "U.S. forests expanded by 9.5 million acres between 1990 and 2000."
• While wetlands were declining at the rate of 500,000 acres a year at midcentury, they "have shown a net gain of about 26,000 acres per year in the past five years," according to the institute.
• Also according to the institute, "bald eagles, down to fewer than 500 nesting pairs in 1965, are now estimated to number more than 7,500 nesting pairs."

Environmentally speaking, America has had a very good third of a century; the economy has grown and pollutants and their impacts upon society are substantially down.

But now comes the carbon dioxide alarm. CO2 is not a pollutant--indeed it is vital for plant growth--but the annual amount released into the atmosphere has increased 40% since 1970. This increase is blamed by global warming alarmists for a great many evil things. The Web site for Al Gore's new film, "An Inconvenient Truth," claims that because of CO2's impact on our atmosphere, sea levels may rise by 20 feet, the Arctic and Antarctic ice will likely melt, heat waves will be "more frequent and more intense," and "deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years--to 300,000 people a year."

If it all sounds familiar, think back to the 1970s. After the first Earth Day the New York Times predicted "intolerable deterioration and possible extinction" for the human race as the result of pollution. Harvard biologist George Wald predicted that unless we took immediate action "civilization will end within 15 to 30 years," and environmental doomsayer Paul Ehrlich predicted that four billion people--including 65 million American--would perish from famine in the 1980s.

So what is the reality about global warming and its impact on the world? A new study released this week by the National Center for Policy Analysis, "Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts" (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285/) looks at a wide variety of climate matters, from global warming and hurricanes to rain and drought, sea levels, arctic temperatures and solar radiation. It concludes that "the science does not support claims of drastic increases in global temperatures over the 21rst century, nor does it support claims of human influence on weather events and other secondary effects of climate change."

There are substantial differences in climate models--some 30 of them looked at by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--but the Climate Science study concludes that "computer models consistently project a rise in temperatures over the past century that is more than twice as high as the measured increase." The National Center for Atmospheric Research's prediction of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit warming is more accurate. In short, the world is not warming as much as environmentalists think it is.

What warming there is turns out to be caused by solar radiation rather than human pollution. The Climate Change study concluded "half the observed 20th century warming occurred before 1940 and cannot be attributed to human causes," and changes in solar radiation can "account for 71 percent of the variation in global surface air temperature from 1880 to 1993."

As for hurricanes, 2005 saw several severe ones--Katrina and Rita both had winds of 150 knots--hitting New Orleans, the Gulf Coast and Florida. But there is little evidence linking them to global warming. A team of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists concluded that the increased Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995 "is not related to greenhouse warming" but instead to natural tropical climate cycles.

Regarding Arctic temperature changes, the Study found the coastal stations in Greenland had actually experienced a cooling trend: The "average summer air temperatures at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, have decreased at the rate of 4 degrees F per decade since measurements began in 1987." Add in Russian and Alaskan temperature data and "Arctic air temperatures were warmest in the 1930s and near the coolest for the period of recorded observations (since at least 1920) in the late 1980s."

As for sea ice, it is not melting excessively. Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans concluded that "global warming appears to play a minor role in changes to Arctic sea ice." The U.N.'s IPCC Third Assessment Report concluded that the rate of sea level rise has not accelerated during the last century, which is supported by U.S. coastal sea level experience. In California sea levels have risen between zero and seven millimeters a year and between 2.1 and 2.8 millimeters a year in North and South Carolina.

Finally come the polar bears--a species thought by global warming proponents to be seriously at risk from the increasing temperature. According to the World Wildlife Fund, among the distinct polar bear populations, two are growing--and in areas where temperatures have risen; ten are stable; and two are decreasing. But those two are in areas such as Baffin Bay where air temperatures have actually fallen.

The Climate Science study concludes that projections of global warming over the next century "have decreased significantly since early modeling efforts," and that global air temperatures should increase by 2.5 degrees and the United States by about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the next hundred years. The environmental pessimists tell us, as in Time magazine's recent global warming issue, to "Be Worried. Be Very Worried," but the truth is that our environmental progress has been substantially improving, and we should be very pleased.

Last edited by Born in the Bronx; 09-15-2005 at 09:36 AM..
DeanPatsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2006, 07:08 AM   #3
Moderator
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 16,357
My Mood: Mellow
Default

Most experts believe global warming exists and most believe that humans contribute to the problem.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

Those who do not believe in global warming often are funded by the very corporations that are fighting against environmental protection. For example anti-global warming epert Steve Milloy (who works for Fox News) was a lobbyist for tobacco and oil firms and David Legates received funding from Exxon.

Sure it's possible that most of the people who devoted their lives to this issue are wrong, but given that our environment is somewhat important, it's better to err on the side of caution, lest we leave future generations a world of desert, floods, and storms. But, wait, if we try to save the world for our children, our taxes will go up! Arghhhh!
Patters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2006, 07:17 AM   #4
Look Up, It's Amazing
 
Harry Boy's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,821
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patters
Most experts believe global warming exists and most believe that humans contribute to the problem.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

Those who do not believe in global warming often are funded by the very corporations that are fighting against environmental protection. For example anti-global warming epert Steve Milloy (who works for Fox News) was a lobbyist for tobacco and oil firms and David Legates received funding from Exxon.

Sure it's possible that most of the people who devoted their lives to this issue are wrong, but given that our environment is somewhat important, it's better to err on the side of caution, lest we leave future generations a world of desert, floods, and storms. But, wait, if we try to save the world for our children, our taxes will go up! Arghhhh!
Could be, but whenever Global Warming is mentioned by people like Gore it always seems as though "Bad Old America" is doing all the damage.

Gore has been in the process of counting Smoke Stacks in America, why doesnt this raving lunatic go to China, Russia or France and count Smoke Stacks.

Did Gore ever mention Global Warming when Billy Blue Dress was the President, I know they never talked about the Homeless until Bush WON.
Harry Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2006, 07:22 AM   #5
Moderator
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 16,357
My Mood: Mellow
Default

Harry, I think those who are concerned about global warming know that America is doing more than many other countries. The problem is global warming affects the world and some countries don't have the money to do anything about it. It's a global problem that the wealthy nations will have to take the lead on.

And, yes, Gore has been consistently an environmentalist including when Billy Blue Dress was President. As to your point about the homeless, well, I don't think that's your issue. It's one of my issues. The Democrats haven't talked about poverty in America in a long time, which I think is an extremely serious issue. It's one of the reasons I might support Edwards for President. He does and has talked about poverty issues for a long time.
Patters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2006, 07:27 AM   #6
On the Roster
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 95
Default

Gore and Billy Boy BJ were in office for 8 years.. That's 8 years that global warming got worse..

Now the lying POS is blaming George Bush and Republicans for global warming along with all the world's ills.

I wouldn't believe a word Gore says if he had his tongue notarized.
DeanPatsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2006, 07:38 AM   #7
Moderator
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 16,357
My Mood: Mellow
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanPatsFan
Gore and Billy Boy BJ were in office for 8 years.. That's 8 years that global warming got worse..

Now the lying POS is blaming George Bush and Republicans for global warming along with all the world's ills.

I wouldn't believe a word Gore says if he had his tongue notarized.
What's your basis for not believing Gore? I think Gore is one of the most honest politicians. If you like Bush, I can understand why you would be uncomfortable with a truthful politician. Clinton tried to do more about global warming, though I agree he should have tried even harder. Also, let's not forget that the Republicans blocked ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.
Patters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2006, 08:02 AM   #8
Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 9,800
Blog Entries: 14
Default

Global warming is NOT a political issue...and the stakes are quite high...like whther this planet will survive like it has...Not something to joke about..I had an acquaintance a few years ago whose friends at MIT said basically the next 15 years would say a lot about where things were headed..(2015)..some were very pessimistic and basically just said there was no hope at all.. The problem is that there's a real tipping point...that at some point, there will be catastrophic things happening and there wiull be little that can be done. Maybe you wish to wait that far...I don't and I think most of the world does not either. I have a few grandchildren..and I want to make sure that there is a viable situation here environmentally.

Last edited by JoeSixPat; 09-15-2005 at 11:28 AM..
Pats726 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2006, 08:21 AM   #9
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 22,120
My Mood: Fine
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patters
What's your basis for not believing Gore? I think Gore is one of the most honest politicians. If you like Bush, I can understand why you would be uncomfortable with a truthful politician. Clinton tried to do more about global warming, though I agree he should have tried even harder. Also, let's not forget that the Republicans blocked ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.
Just for the record and honesty and all that the Kyoto Treaty was rejected 97-0 by the US Senate, not exactly a partisan vote. There is a lot of doubt that homo sapiens are the driver in any current global climate flucuations. Here is a link and excerpt from an article by Fred Singer (Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project based in Arlington, Virginia. He has served as director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service and chief scientist of the Department of Transportation.)

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/4/singer.htm

here's an excerpt:
An even more serious embarrassment to the IPCC claim is the fact that the global atmosphere has not warmed appreciably in the last quarter century. The IPCC climate models very specifically call for the atmosphere to warm faster than the surface as a result of the greenhouse effect. The warming rate is supposed to increase with the altitude up to about five miles. But data from weather satellites and weather balloons show no significant rise in the global mean temperature of the atmosphere, in stark contradiction to the climate models.

Despite the paucity of proof for past climate claims, the third IPCC report says that “new evidence” makes it likely that “most of the warming observed over the last 50 years” comes from the human production of greenhouse gases. This “new evidence” is based on a single analysis of “proxy” data (that is, data that do not come from thermometers but rather from sources like tree rings, ice cores, corals, and ocean and lake sediments) showing the twentieth century to be the warmest in the past thousand years. Not only does this analysis conflict with other published analyses of proxy data, but it was also exploded in a re-analysis published in 2003, which showed that the IPCC claim was the result of a gross mishandling of the underlying data. If the dispute is settled in favor of the re-analysis—as seems likely—the IPCC claim of a “human influence on global climate” will be severely damaged.

The response of global-warming theorists to these contrary findings has been twofold: One strategy has been to attack and try to discredit both the satellite data and the re-analysis of the proxy data; the other has been simply to ignore any contrary evidence. They make repeated references to the “warming of the last 25 years” but never mention the total lack of warming evidenced in both satellite and balloon observations. To ensure that the disparities do not get publicized, environmental lobbying groups (and their allies in politics and the media) generally refer to the science as “settled.” They refer to the “scientific consensus” of the 2,000 or so scientists connected to the IPCC—even though probably no more than 100 of those are true climate specialists; many are actually social scientists and government functionaries; and the list includes some skeptics of global warming who have expressed doubts about the IPCC’s conclusions.

Sorry for the long post.
__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
patsfan13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2006, 08:25 AM   #10
On the Roster
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 95
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patters
What's your basis for not believing Gore? I think Gore is one of the most honest politicians. If you like Bush, I can understand why you would be uncomfortable with a truthful politician. Clinton tried to do more about global warming, though I agree he should have tried even harder. Also, let's not forget that the Republicans blocked ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.
My God, are you serious? Gore is one of the biggest liars out there. The guy wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the @ss....

As for your assertion that Republicans blocked the US from signing the Kyoto Treaty, (Therefore saving US jobs) other than France and Switzerland, none of the other signees are abidding by the treaty. They are opting to pay fines instead.

Last edited by shmessy; 09-15-2005 at 12:01 PM..
DeanPatsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

© Copyright 2000-2012. PatsFans.com Is a Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.
The opinions posted in this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of our staff at PatsFans.com or USA Today.
We are not affiliated with the New England Patriots™ or the NFL™. The Photo Used In the header was taken by Ian Logue.

This site is owned and operated by I&K Internet Design Enterprises, LLC