PAGE 2… (back to TOC)
1. Gore’s been telling the story
for a long time
I didn’t think he had been doing this for that long, but it turns out he has, which I think is even more crazy considering he had ample time to find out the truth on these issues. It’s obvious he wants to discount any and all arguments that he might be wrong. In an interview by David Roberts, Gore admits to over-representing the truth…
Roberts: There's a lot of debate
right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people
motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?
Gore: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In
the
2. The movie is all about Gore
One of the things that got to me very early in the movie was how much of the movie we see Gore thinking, walking, mulling, remembering, traveling… he spends way too much time telling us how much he hates not being President – NONE of which has anything to do with global warming. So why did he put that in the movie?????
With these lectures he only considered one point of view, and not only did he
fail to consider the other side of the story which would have made his movie a
little more believable, he basically said that anyone who believes otherwise is
simply stupid. He talks as if he is an authority on these things, but if you
really take the time to read all of these scientists I have quoted, you will
find that it is all basically a front for him to make money, and to attain a
self-made position of global guru. Anyone who really watches and listens to the
movie can see that it is so one sided, it’s ridiculous… keep reading!
3. Ray Nagin
is “Good people in politics”?
OK… this burned my chaps. Gore just slipped this one by calling Ray Nagin one of those good people in politics. Ray Nagin is probably one of the most ill-prepared mayors in the country who blames everything on someone else. OK, here’s some real stuff from other people…
Jan 16, 2005 NEW ORLEANS (AP) -
Mayor Ray Nagin suggested Monday that Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita and other storms were a sign that "God is mad at
"Surely God is mad at
"Surely he doesn't approve of
us being in
Nagin
also promised that
"It's time for us to come
together. It's time for us to rebuild
Yesterday, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin held a news conference with Police Chief Warren Riley at the Louisiana Superdome to showcase $1.1 million in new weaponry and equipment. In a controversial photo, Nagin was shown pointing a high powered M-4 rifle at Riley. Nagin was laughing and clowning around during the photo shoot.
Today, his Communications Director Ceeon Quiett has released a statement claiming that the photo was taken out of context and “misrepresented” what was actually going on.
Yet, the photo was an accurate depiction of what Nagin was doing, goofing around with his police chief. What is amazing is that this photo was taken on the same day that the New Orleans Police Department released new crime figures showing a 25% increase in crime in the final quarter of 2007.
Crime is not a laughing matter in
This “good people in politics” was responding to a TV
reporter's question about
"Do I worry about it?
Somewhat. It's not good for us, but it also keeps the
OUR MAYOR, on the other hand, is
only "somewhat" bothered by the violence, and sees a marketing
opportunity for our stricken city. As all the helpful Couhig
Conservatives and other Nagin-enablers will tell you,
OUR MAYOR "understands business". Unlike, say, Mitch Landrieu, Nagin understands that being the murder capital of the
4. The “dark side of the moon”
Tell me you caught this! WOW, seems like to me that someone who is so scientifically in-tune would know better than say something like the “dark side of the moon.” Give me a break! Here are some other folks speaking to this…
This one is just plain ignorance of basic astronomical understanding. There is no DARK SIDE of the moon except the side that is not lit by the sun. The proper terminology is the FAR side of the moon. If he doesn’t have a grasp of this, can he have a grasp of infinitely more intricate scientific issues??? ME
By Loretta Hidalgo Whitesides November 14, 2007 | 12:20:14 PMCategories: Space
How embarrassing is it for someone with advanced degrees in science and a life long love of space exploration to be caught referencing the famed "dark side of the moon" (at least I was up on my Pink Floyd) only to be met by a surprised look from my astronomical colleague with the comment, "Loretta, you know there isn't really a dark side of the moon."
But how can it not exist? There is a whole ALBUM dedicated to it. Well it's true. Although there is a part of the moon that we never see from Earth (since it always keeps the same side towards us), the backside isn't dark. It's just the "far side of the moon" (first seen by human eyes in 1968 during Apollo 8). Half the time the far side is in sunlight and half the time it's not, just like the Earth. Ok, ok I get it. http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/no-dark-side-of.html
Bad Astronomy: "That's as remote as the dark side of the Moon!"
Good astronomy: "That's as remote as the far side of the Moon!"
How it works:
I had the misfortune this morning to wake to the radio playing the song
"Dream Weaver" (I used to love that song when I was a kid, but as a
friend of mine likes to say, "We are not responsible for songs we liked
when we were 15 years old"). As the tired, hackneyed refrains went on, one
in particular caught my ear: " Fly me away to the bright side of the moon,
and meet me on the other side."
Of course, there is a bright side of the Moon, and you can go to it. But if you sit still, you can only be there for two weeks. The bright side (and therefore the dark side too) is not a fixed place, but appears to move as the Moon revolves around the Earth.
Seen from the surface of the Earth, the Moon does not appear to rotate. This is because from an outside frame of reference, the Moon rotates once for every time it goes around the Earth. So from our vantage point, the Moon is naturally divided into two halves: the hemisphere we always see, called the nearside, and the hemisphere we do not see, the farside. The farside has only been seen by probes or astronauts that have actually orbited (or at least passed by) the Moon.
This is very different from the dark side. As the Moon orbits the Earth, different parts of it get illuminated by the Sun. When the Moon is between the Earth and the Sun, we see it almost entirely in shadow. This is called the new moon. Half a lunar orbit later (two weeks or so) it is fully illuminated by the Sun, giving us a full moon. In between we get a half moon, sometimes confusingly called a quarter moon because the Moon has completed 1/4 of an orbit. These are called the phases of the Moon (I have heard that some people think that the phases are caused by the shadow of the Earth on the Moon; but that is whole different can of Bad Astronomy). http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/dark_side.html
5. The “only picture
of full earth”?
Gore said the picture of the planet he used was the ONLY full earth shot ever taken. It is NOT the only picture of ‘full earth,’ it’s the FIRST picture taken of the full earth some distance from space. You can find quite a few on the NASA site, one of which I have on my desktop at work! I like this one because it shows North America rather than Africa. And I’ve just planted in this document on the right.
The famous "Blue Marble" shot represents the first photograph in which Earth is in full view. The picture was taken on December 7, 1972, as the Apollo 17 crew left Earth’s orbit for the moon. With the sun at their backs, the crew had a perfectly lit view of the blue planet. http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/wallpaper/full-earth-photo-photography.html
http://www.spaceimages.com/earth.html
6. Atmosphere so thin it’s like
the “varnish on a globe”.
This is a quote from Carl Sagan…
almost. He actually compared the
atmosphere to a “coat
of varnish on an orange” which is quite a bit different than a globe. The
earth’s atmosphere is much thicker than the ‘varnish on the globe.’ When I fly
a plane, I’m required to have oxygen assistance above 8,000 feet asl, so it may be true that the breathable atmosphere
(lower troposphere) may be only as thick as the varnish on the
The thickness of the Earth's atmosphere is not a definite number, but is estimated to be about 1000 km. The reason that there is no definite number is because there is no set boundary where the atmosphere ends. As the altitude of air increases there is a decrease in atmospheric gases in the air, but there are still some traces of it. So it is difficult to pinpoint a definite boundary. The thickness of the atmosphere was found in five sources, one of which is not consistent with the rest. (1,000 kilometers = 621.371192 miles)
|
Bibliographic Entry |
Result |
Standardized |
|
Miles, |
"The atmosphere, or air, extends upward from the surface of
land and water for perhaps 600 miles." |
965 km |
|
Lide, David R. Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics. 77th Edition. |
"The Earth's atmosphere from the surface to 1000 km,
as it is assumed to exist in a period of moderate solar activity." |
1000 km |
|
Gillmor, C.
S. Twentieth Century Physics. |
"The ionosphere, extending from about 50 to 1000 km
above the Earth's surface." |
1000 km |
|
Gresswell, R. Kay. Physical
Geography. |
"Fig. 24. Layers of the atmosphere
300 miles" |
482 km |
|
Gwinn,
Robert P. Encyclopedia Britannica. |
"The depth of this mantle of air may be some what
arbitrarily placed at about 1000 km." |
1000 km |
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/AndreaPark.shtml
7. Explanation of
solar radiation not accurate.
8. Pollution is thickening our atmosphere
9. Sunbeams caught by
polluted greenhouse gasses
From what I learned in Middle School Earth Science I knew that this just wasn’t right. This illustration is WAY too simplified and thereby not really accurate. Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, PhD Harvard University, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT from his paper titled Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus …
The crude idea in the common popular presentation of the greenhouse effect is that the atmosphere is transparent to sunlight (apart from the very significant reflectivity of both clouds and the surface), which heats the Earth's surface. The surface offsets that heating by radiating in the infrared. The infrared radiation increases with increasing surface temperature, and the temperature adjusts until balance is achieved. If the atmosphere were also transparent to infrared radiation, the infrared radiation produced by an average surface temperature of minus eighteen degrees centigrade would balance the incoming solar radiation (less that amount reflected back to space by clouds). The atmosphere is not transparent in the infrared, however. So the Earth must heat up somewhat more to deliver the same flux of infrared radiation to space. That is what is called the greenhouse effect.
The fact that the Earth's average surface temperature is fifteen
degrees centigrade rather than minus eighteen degrees centigrade is attributed
to that effect. The main absorbers of infrared in the atmosphere are
water vapor and clouds. Even if all other greenhouse gases (such as carbon
dioxide and methane) were to disappear, we would still be left with over 98
percent of the current greenhouse effect. Nevertheless, it is presumed that
increases in carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases will lead to
significant increases in temperature. As we have seen, carbon dioxide is
increasing. So are other minor greenhouse gases. A widely held but questionable
contention is that those increases will continue along the path they have
followed for the past century.
The simple picture of the greenhouse mechanism is seriously oversimplified. Many of us were taught in elementary school that heat is transported by radiation, convection, and conduction. The above representation only refers to radiative transfer. As it turns out, if there were only radiative heat transfer, the greenhouse effect would warm the Earth to about seventy-seven degrees centigrade rather than to fifteen degrees centigrade. In fact, the greenhouse effect is only about 25 percent of what it would be in a pure radiative situation. The reason for this is the presence of convection (heat transport by air motions), which bypasses much of the radiative absorption.
What is really going on is schematically illustrated in Figure 1. The surface of the Earth is cooled in large measure by air currents (in various forms including deep clouds) that carry heat upward and poleward. One consequence of this picture is that it is the greenhouse gases well above the Earth's surface that are of primary importance in determining the temperature of the Earth. That is especially important for water vapor, whose density decreases by about a factor of 1,000 between the surface and ten kilometers above the surface. Another consequence is that one cannot even calculate the temperature of the Earth without models that accurately reproduce the motions of the atmosphere. Indeed, present models have large errors here--on the order of 50 percent. Not surprisingly, those models are unable to calculate correctly either the present average temperature of the Earth or the temperature ranges from the equator to the poles. Rather, the models are adjusted or "tuned" to get those quantities approximately right. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released its Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI) in 2006. Among the report, it says this about how much CO2 is actually in the atmosphere…
During 2005, global CO2 increased from an average of 376.8 parts per million (ppm) in 2004 to 378.9 ppm. This increase of 2.1 ppm means that for every one million air molecules there were slightly more than two new CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. The pre-industrial CO2 level was approximately 278 ppm.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2621.htm
SIMPLIFIED… OK, out
of a million molecules of our atmosphere, there was only an increase of TWO in
2005? Wow, that really is a change! Even looking at the total molecules change
since pre-industrial times, out of a MILLION molecules, we’re talking about an
increase of only 100? That’s all?? When you then consider the changes in the
other GHGs like H2O, hmmm…
Here’s some info about the troposphere from The King's School, College Green, Worcester, England…
The troposphere is the atmospheric layer closest to the planet and contains the largest percentage of the mass of the total atmosphere. It is characterized by the density of its air and an average temperature decrease with height ( lapse rate ) of 6oC per kilometer.
Temperature and water vapor content in the troposphere decrease rapidly with altitude. Water vapor plays a major role in regulating air temperature because it absorbs solar energy and thermal radiation from the planet's surface. The troposphere contains 99% of the water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor concentrations vary with latitudinal position (i.e. North to South). They are greatest above the tropics, where they may be as high as 3%, and decrease toward the polar regions.
All weather phenomena occur within the troposphere, although turbulence may extend into the lower portion of the stratosphere. Troposphere means "region of mixing" and is so named because of vigorous convective air currents within the layer. http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/kingworc/departments/geography/nottingham/atmosphere/pages/troposphere.html
OK, now knowing what the troposphere is, and that ALL weather phenomena happen here, check out this info from our own government Energy Information Administration…
Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html
I find it very hard to imagine how a difference of 200 molecules out of a MILLION could have any effect on our temperatures, especially making it THICKER. Also consider that our own government tells us that 95% of temperature change in our atmosphere (the part that affects our weather) actually is water vapor, not CO2.
10. Harvard Prof.
Roger Revelle, who Gore says started him in
considering Global Warming
Gore spent a good bit of time talking about the professor at Harvard that caught his attention about rising sea temperatures and raising CO2 levels. Apparently Gore’s professor doesn’t share his views. From an article written by Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation. His column appears every Wednesday in Financial Post, and he is one of Canada's leading environmentalists. …
While Gore in the late 1980s was becoming a prominent politician, loudly warning of global warming dangers, Dr. Revelle was quietly warning against taking any drastic action.
In a July 14, 1988, letter to Congressman Jim Bates, he wrote that: "Most scientists familiar with the subject are not yet willing to bet that the climate this year is the result of 'greenhouse warming.' As you very well know, climate is highly variable from year to year, and the causes of these variations are not at all well understood. My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways."
A few days later, he sent a similar letter to Senator Tim Wirth, cautioning "... we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."
Then in 1991, Dr. Revelle wrote an article for Cosmos, a scientific journal, with two illustrious colleagues, Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite. Entitled "What to do about greenhouse warming: Look before you leap," the article argued that decades of research could be required for the consequences of increased carbon dioxide to be understood, and laid out the harm that could come of acting recklessly: "Drastic, precipitous and, especially, unilateral steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective. Stringent controls enacted now would be economically devastating, particularly for developing countries for whom reduced energy consumption would mean slower rates of economic growth without being able to delay greatly the growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Yale economist William Nordhaus, one of the few who have been trying to deal quantitatively with the economics of the greenhouse effect, has pointed out that '... those who argue for strong measures to slow greenhouse warming have reached their conclusion without any discernible analysis of the costs and benefits ... . ' It would be prudent to complete the ongoing and recently expanded research so that we will know what we are doing before we act. 'Look before you leap' may still be good advice." Three months after the Cosmos article appeared, Dr. Revelle died of a heart attack.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070430_solomon.pdf
http://home.att.net/~espi/Cosmos_article.pdf
12. Kilamagaro’s last sliver of glacier
From NASA’s ISS Earthkam, we find this report…
It is important to note that global warming is not a universally accepted cause for Kilimanjaro's melting. When the Furtwängler Glacier was drilled for ice core samples in 2000, it was completely water-saturated. While Thompson believes that is because colder air surrounding the glacier kept its walls frozen even as the interior was melting, some scientists attribute the overflow to volcanic vents, heating the base of the glacier and melting the bottom layer of ice.
According to Douglas R. Hardy, a climatologist at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, "'the real explanations are much more complex. Global warming plays a part, but a variety of factors are really involved.'" He believes that forest reduction in the areas surrounding Kilimanjaro, and not global warming, might be the strongest human influence on glacial recession. "'Clearing for agriculture and forest fires-often caused by honey collectors trying to smoke bees out of their hives-have greatly reduced the surrounding forests,'" he claims. The loss of foliage causes less moisture to be pumped into the atmosphere, leading to reduced cloud cover and precipitation and increased solar radiation and glacial evaporation (1). http://www.earthkam.ucsd.edu/public/images/investigations/kilimanjaro/index.shtml
I had to dig for this one… The International Journal of Climatology 2004 report on the glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro…
This question is vitally important and is addressed in this paper in order to develop a new research concept, since the recession of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers is widely attributed to global warming only, i.e. understood as a direct consequence solely of increased air temperature (e.g. Irion, 2002; Thompson et al., 2002). This is an overly simplistic view and does not consider the following. (i) Temperature increases in the tropics on the surface and in the troposphere have been little in recent decades compared with the global trend (Gaffen et al., 2000; Hartmann, 2002). (ii) In the East African highlands, there is no trend in air temperature records that nearly span the whole 20th century (85 years; Hay et al., 2002). (iii) Glacier–climate interaction in the tropics shows peculiar characteristics compared with the mid- and high-latitudes (Kaser et al., 1996; Kaser, 2001), as they are located in a particular climate, which was outlined in Section 1. Several energy- and mass-balance investigations on tropical glaciers (e.g. Wagnon et al., 2001; Francou et al., 2003) reveal that these glaciers are most sensitive to shifts in hygric seasonality and changes in related parameters (e.g. precipitation, surface albedo). (iv) The enormous size and height of the mountain represents an exceptional phenomenon amongst glacierized mountains in the tropics, reducing the effect of air temperature on ice recession decisively (Kaser and Osmaston, 2002). (v) Early researchers have already suggested that changes in precipitation might be driv- ing the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers, based on direct field observations (e.g. Jager, 1931; Geilinger, 1936). http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:yiUEu39M0i0J:www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/kaser2004.pdf+%22Georg+Kaser%22+2004+article+in+The+International+Journal+of+Climatology&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
In fact, the reduction of snow pack on Kilimanjaro began in the 1840’s, long before AGW could have been the culprit. In a report by Hongxu Zhao and G. W. K. Moore, both from the Department of Physics, University of Toronto, we find no only that the reduction happened much earlier than ‘recent’, but that the cause is due to a long-term weakening of the Pacific trade winds…
In 1884, Blanford suggested that summer rainfall over Northwest India was anti-correlated with snow cover during the preceding winter and spring in the western Himalaya. Walker elaborated on this suggestion in his seminal work on predictors of the Indian summer monsoon, a body of work that forms the basis of our understanding of how Eurasia influences this monsoonal circulation. Recently, a number of studies have questioned the existence of this relationship or have proposed a more complex coupling between Eurasian snow cover, including the Himalaya, and the Indian summer monsoon. Here, we present a 196-year record of snow accumulation from a Himalayan ice core that contains a decreasing trend in accumulation that began in the 1840s. Indian summer monsoon rainfall shows no evidence of such a trend and we argue that this reduction in snow accumulation is associated with a long-term weakening of the trade winds over the Pacific Ocean. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027339.shtml
Claude
Allegre, one of the most decorated French geophysicists,
is a former government official and an active member of
So, the question that arises is
whether there is climate warming or not? The argument that builds upon the
retreating white cap of Kilimanjaro seems implacable. The retreating white cap
is observable, tangible. Indeed, but things are not as straightforward as they
seem. The gradual retreat of the snows of Kilimanjaro is often imputed to local
phenomena, the main one of these being desertification in
13. Columbia’s
glacier… “this is what they’re seeing every day”
14. More than half
of people’s drinking water is from glacial melt waters
Since
I’ve already dealt a great deal on glaciers and the fact that they are
basically retreating in many area NOT due to AGW in any significant way, there
are a few other statements I would like to clear up. Gore uses footage and pictures that are
either very misleading or totally lies.
Gore says the Upsala Glacier in Argentina is
mostly gone, using the two pictures on the left showing the same mountain range
in the background. Close examination
(which movie viewers can’t do) of the mountain range in the background will
detect a slight change in position. Check the small peak in between the two
larger peaks on the left… the two shots were NOT TAKEN IN THE SAME LOCATION!!! And the fact that the picture was taken with
a very wide angle lens will drastically exaggerate whatever is in the near
field. Gore said about these pics… “75 years ago in Patagonia on the tip of
South America, this vast expanse of ice is now gone.” Well, look at the picture on the right taken
from NASA
in January 2004… you can see that the “expanse of ice” wasn’t shown in the
first picture, just the front of it.
This glacier still has about 902 square km
or 379 square miles of surface area. It is NOT mostly gone!
By
the way, one of the Patagonian glaciers NOT mentioned by Gore is this one on
the left called Pio XI which has actually GROWN and
even Green Peace says is larger
now than any time in the past 6,000 years.
The glaciers in the southern tip of South America are for the most part in retreat, but the reason for the retreat isn’t something that has just happened because of any recent AGW. Glaciers have grown and retreated many times in the past. In the summary of the study by Neil F. Glasser, PhD Edinborough, Centre for Glaciology, Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences, University of Wales; Stephan Harrison and Vanessa Winchester, School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford; and Masamu Aniyac, Institute of Geoscience, University of Tsukuba, Japan; we find the following…
This evidence indicates that the most recent glacial advances in Patagonia occurred during the Little Ice Age, out of which serious cold spell the earth has been gradually emerging for the past two centuries, causing many glaciers to retreat. Prior to the Little Ice Age, however, there was an interval of higher temperatures known as the Medieval Warm Period, when glaciers also decreased in size and extent; and this warm interlude was in turn preceded by a still earlier era of pronounced glacial activity that is designated the Dark Ages Cold Period, which was also preceded by a period of higher temperatures and retreating glaciers that is denoted the Roman Warm Period. http://www.unige.ch/forel/PapersQG06/Glaser%20et%20al04.pdf
Gore knows all of this… so why is he not telling us the truth and making us think that it is because of AGW?????? Well, the other issue is that Gore says… “more than 40% of all the people in the world get their drinking water from rivers and spring systems that are fed more than half by the melt water coming off the glaciers.” 40% of all the people in the world?? That sounded very funny to me. After researching, this is probably from the fact that the area of Asia (Nepal, India and China) has about 40% of the world’s population, and most of them find drinking water from lakes and rivers. So, he means that over half of the water in the lakes and the rivers is from glacial melt water. It is true that glaciers are retreating, and if we continue in the current warming trend, most of them will probably go away. However, while we are losing the glaciers, snow accumulations in the high altitudes of the Northern Hemisphere has stayed consistent.
A very exhaustive study (at least it was for me to read it)
from Ross D. Brown, Climate Research Branch, Meteorological
Service of Canada – which tells us that snow accumulations for the northern
hemisphere have increased only about 2% per decade, but have INCREASED…
The twentieth-century variations in midlatitudinal snow cover and snow depth documented in this study, together with observations of increased winter snow depths over Eurasia (Ye et al. 1998), present evidence of a consistent circumpolar response of increased snow accumulation during cold months and reduced snow accumulations during the spring. This pattern would appear to be a logical response to concurrent increasing trends in temperature and precipitation. To examine this possibility further, the sensitivity of snow accumulation to concurrent warming and increasing precipitation was investigated using the simple climatological snow cover reconstruction model presented in Eq. (2). This model includes empirical parameterizations for several important temperature-dependent processes: precipitation phase, snowmelt from rain, and snowmelt from sensible energy transfer to the snowpack (represented through a temperature-index approach). The model was run with 30 yr of daily climate data from Saskatoon, Canada (52.2°N, 106.6°W) located in the NA winter and spring snow cover–temperature sensitive regions identified by Karl et al. (1993a). A fixed temperature trend of 1.5°C (100 yr)−1 was used, which approximates projected global warming under IS92d scenario (IPCC 1996), and precipitation increases from 0% to 4% of mean per decade. The results (Fig. 16) indicate that local precipitation increases as small as 2% of mean per decade are sufficient to offset the effects of warming and lead to an increase in cold-season snow accumulation at midlatitudinal continental locations. http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442(2000)013%3C2339%3ANHSCVA%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1#S4
16. Seeing the
difference in the core samples from the Clean Air Act
I dealt with the core samples earlier, but this one didn’t fit there so I will deal with it here. Being able to see the difference in the ice core where the clean air act was in force is a pretty good stretch. Even I could see through that one. But I found a scientist who is basically a proponent of Gore to set this one straight. Eric Steig, a geochemist at the University of Washington says this about that…
At one point Gore claims that you can see the aerosol concentrations in Antarctic ice cores change "in just two years", due to the U.S. Clean Air Act. You can't see dust and aerosols at all in Antarctic cores — not with the naked eye — and I'm skeptical you can definitively point to the influence of the Clean Air Act. I was left wondering where Gore got this notion, and I hope he'll correct it in future versions of his slideshow. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/
24. Gore’s son accident
– current life
While I am really sad for his son’s accident, his actions surrounding the accident are very telling about his own character and priorities. The fact that he ‘gave up’ his politics to focus on his family doesn’t actually jive with his son’s lack of direction while he was using excessive jet fuel tooling around the world telling everyone to stop using fuel. These five articles pretty much say it all – nuff said…
Posted: October 18, 2000 By Paul Sperry 2008 WorldNetDaily.com -
Hospital staffers who witnessed the behind-the-scenes maneuvering were "appalled" at what seemed to be Gore's calculating behavior in the middle of a heart-rending family crisis -- behavior that would show up again later in his political life, fitting into a pattern. It was no secret that Gore, coming off a failed bid for the White House in 1988, was angling for another run and seeking more press exposure.
The staff at the Baltimore hospital where Albert Gore III was treated were shocked, first, that Gore would want to even hold a press conference after Tipper Gore had insisted on maintaining their "privacy," and then, that he almost held up the televised news event fussing over what style of shirt to wear.
Gore was wearing a dress shirt at the time, but decided it looked too serious and business-like for the occasion, according to sources. He wanted a shirt that conveyed a warmer, family image, so he sent his staff out to find a more casual-looking shirt.
After a trip to a Johns Hopkins Hospital gift shop didn't turn up what he wanted, a Senate staffer finally brought back from an outside store a Pendelton-style, or flannel-like, long-sleeve sports shirt that Gore liked and changed into.
"He was wearing a button-down Oxford-cloth shirt which said, 'Office. This is a work shirt.' And he decided he wanted a much more casual shirt which said, 'Home, dad,'" a source who wished to remain anonymous said.
"He didn't like anything in the gift shop," the source added. "So he sent a staff member out to get another shirt."
Jo Ann Rogers, director of media
relations for Johns Hopkins Hospital, says the press conference took place the
day Gore's son was discharged -- on April 26, 1989. The boy was recovering from
a broken thighbone, broken collarbone, broken ribs, ruptured spleen (some 60
percent of which was removed), bruised lung, bruised pancreas, bruised kidney
and second-degree skin burns from where he was dragged by the car. Rogers, who
held the same job then, says she doesn't "remember any details" from
the event. "The only thing I vaguely remember was that when his son was
discharged, his handlers -- his office staff and his press officer -- wanted to
have, like, an exit press briefing,"
A group of public-affairs staffers in the Johns Hopkins Children's Center worked with Gore's staff to set up the press conference, which was attended by a handful of national press, including TV camera crews and newspaper photographers. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20773
IN 1991, with President George Bush still riding high, then-Sen. Al Gore announced he wouldn't make another bid for the Democratic presidential nomination -- partly because two years earlier his son had nearly died after being struck by a car. "My family -- my wife and four young children -- are more important than politics and personal ambition," he avowed. Half a year later Gore's manifesto on the ecological crisis, Earth in the Balance, appeared -- also a result, he writes in the introduction, of his son's accident. The experience made him uncomfortable with the compromises and tawdriness of practical politics, "increasingly impatient with the status quo, with conventional wisdom." By his own telling, Gore had been transformed into a politician of extraordinary virtue, willing to forsake ambition for his family, determined to embark on a quasi-spiritual crusade to save not just America or even democracy, but the planet.
Then, Bill Clinton called. Gore took the second spot on the ticket in 1992 and decided the wife and kids could wait while he spent his days disavowing the implications of Earth in the Balance in national debates and defending the compromises and tawdriness of the former Arkansas governor. Why the reversal? Well, it turns out, because his son had nearly died in a car accident. Accepting the vice-presidential nomination, Gore told the Democratic National Convention how immediately after the accident his son "was limp and still, without breath or pulse." Gore was running for national office because, like his son, "our democracy is lying there in the gutter, waiting for us to give it a second breath of life." His son's near-death, then, was now a kind of qualification for higher office. In fact, it seemed to be a justification for anything, a charm that Gore could rub whenever he needed an aura of virtue. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n19_v48/ai_18763610
From CBS News…
In the summer of 2000, Gore was cited by the North Carolina Highway Patrol for driving 97 mph in a 55-mph zone. Under an agreement with prosecutors, a reckless driving charge was dropped in the North Carolina case, but he was fined $125 for speeding and his driving privileges in the state were suspended. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/10/politics/main587749.shtml
Sunday, December 21, 2003WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The son of former Vice President Al Gore was arrested Friday night on a marijuana possession charge after police stopped the car he was driving for not having its headlights on, according to a news release from the Montgomery County, Maryland, Department of Police Services.
Albert
Gore III, 21, was behind the wheel of a Cadillac driving in downtown Bethesda
at 11:30 p.m. EST Friday when it was spotted by a unit with the Montgomery
County Police Holiday Task Force, the statement said.
After he pulled the car over, Officer Robert Cassels noticed all of its windows and the sunroof were opened despite the freezing temperature, and he "smelled the odor of marijuana coming from inside the car," the statement said. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/12/20/gore.son/
Al Gore III, the 24-year-old son
of Al Gore was arrested on suspicion of drug possession today. The former
second-in-command's son was pulled over after allegedly driving his Prius 100 miles an hour down an Orange County freeway. (At
least he was driving a Prius!) When deputies searched
the car they found pot, along with Valium, Xanax, Vicodin and Adderall. He is
currently being held at the Santa Ana Inmate Reception Center on $20,000 bail.
This isn't Gore III's first arrest. He was charged
with marijuana possession in 2003 and was ticketed for reckless driving in 2000
and 2002. http://www.tmz.com/2007/07/04/al-gores-son-busted/
On to next page… (back
to TOC)