Wow! A $300 million dollar ad campaign! Enough money to feed everyone in Africa for about a month. Enough money to guarantee huge returns in carbon trading scams. Enough money to keep the press silent. This is big money and should raise some eyebrows - but it won't.

Lord Monckton has challenged Gore to a debate, but Gore ignores him, instead sticking with propaganda and denial. The US press has been completely complicit, and if it weren't for the Internet we would all be doomed.

Thanks to Brett and Accuweather for keeping free speech alive. This site is by far the best at allowing both sides to present their arguments openly - in the debating tradition which made America great. I am now automatically censored from both realclimate and climateprogress, despite never violating either TOU. Those people are not interested in debate or facts. I have to wonder what their motivation is?

BTW - Gore's analogy to the flat earth is pretty good. The temperature graphs have been flat since Congress unanimously rejected Kyoto in 1998 under Gore's watch.

Who does it demean--AGW skeptics, flat earthers, or lunar-landing conspiracy theorists?

Bad use of the pronoun them!

"fringe groups" who believe the world is flat or that the 1969 moon landings never happened, try to monopolize the news and grab all attention they can. They have a single fixation to which they dedicate all their life.

Look also at those believing in chemtrails.

I do not see any such behavior from AGW skeptics. On the contrary, it's AGW believers that are constantly on the war path.

Apparently Gore doesn't keep up with current weather trends.
Watch for the backlash and lawsuits to come out of this one.

Oh Great! Al has found me out! Now where did I put that aluminum foil hat?

Patrick Henry wrote:
"Thanks to Brett and Accuweather for keeping free speech alive. This site is by far the best at allowing both sides to present their arguments openly - in the debating tradition which made America great."

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Accuweather having the courage to allow people to express all sides of the AGW debate is the primary reason I no longer look at the "other" website for my local weather and go to Accuweather.com many times per day. (That, and Kate Bilo of course)

Thanks, Brett and Accuweather!

Reply: We greatly appreciate that. Thanks!

This guy is just too funny! He is in his own little dream world. Small minority. LOL!!! Oh, by the by. Our old friend Fred Singer is hopp'n mad.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/03/28/scientist-demands-apology-abc-global-warming-hit-piece

Here's hoping he jumps on the WX Channel founder law suit band wagon against Gore, as well! You Go, Uncle Fred!

john k:

it's on my head....

To find it necessary to spend $300 million to remind people of the impending apocalypse when the debate is already settled.

Patrick Henry wrote:

"I am now automatically censored from both realclimate and climateprogress, despite never violating either TOU."

GSN responds:

HA!

Count me in as one of the "Tiny, Tiny Minority"!! I should be a charter member. Where can I get my card?

Yes, that group of people who used to think the world was flat... in other words, everyone at that time. Good analogy. The only people who did not think the world was flat was a tiny, tiny minority of people that were skeptical of that claim, and slap me on the bum, they were correct, these skeptics were.

Like Patrick said thanks Brett for keeping both sides open to present their thought but I know one thing if I wrote exactly what I was thinking you probably would not post it. It is so pathetic to give this man air time on national t.v. Of course, no talk of the other side will be discussed. It will Als doom and gloom terror stories that will attempt to scare people and then he can make some more profit. Uhhh... this is so sick, here we go again yelling fire in a crowded room, and regardless to what anyone thinks that is exactly what it is, except the people running out of the building hand him a dollar to leave. How can people not see how phony this guy is, it is almost like he is a robot, everything is programmed in his thick skull, it is bass akwards but its there. Please would one skeptic answer my questions and attempt to turn me to the dark side, does the sun play a huge factor in the earths temperatures? Why have temperatures leveled off, why have other ice ages came and gone, why is Mars experiencing the same type of climate change, why were crops in areas grown farther north hundreds of years ago than today, etc,etc..Don't worry Obi-Wan the dark side will not get me because the force is not strong on their side and no one will attempt to answer these few questions because they like DOOM and GLOOM!

It’s Al Gore!
What? You were expecting rational discourse?
Anything said reflecting his conflict of interest because of his current businesses, a political agenda and a complete lack of scientific education or understanding would just be redundant.
It's Al Gore!
Another Friday another Laugh.

I think that there exists a larger 'minority' than Al Gore may believe.

A lot of people are skeptical of AGW because of the cooler winter...and that sunspots and solar activity in thousands of years past correlates much better to temperature trends than do CO2.

Too much uncertainty to make the 100% confidence choice that AGW is only to blame.

The problem is...people with power and influence over the media are on the AGW bandwagon...because of the emotion of destruction/death/fear it triggers and the attention and MONEY it brings in.

If AGW skeptics are a "tiny, tiny minority" as Al Gore claims then why is his Alliance for Climate Protection spending $300,000,000 in an ad campaign?

Methinks "Big Foot" is telling another whopper!

PH, Great comments on the 'free speech' above.

Brett: Thanks also, I've been off and on the same sites PH has under nickname, and I can second his comments. Skeptics are responded to, if at all, with arrogance, and disdain, much like Gore is doing on this free publicity. AccuWeather is by far the best, and it is interested reading/talking to the guys/ladies on this blog whether they agree with my Skepticism or not. Most Hysterics prefer to go to the sympathetic blogs where they can preach to the converted.....where they receive nary a dissent or if they do, they stand assured that the 'dissenter' will be gang tackled withing 10 minutes.....

Also, good to have you back. First thing I check upon on awakening in the AM is the Blog....and the weather for Atlanta.

300 million, geeeeeze! Somebody really got a stake in the money to be made on this scam. Send me a, say, hundred thousand, and I'll pack up my convictions and convert...

GSN is all for censorship, ehh? How patriotic!

The only tiny, tiny thing coming out of this AGW debate is the amount of CO2 (.0087) man has contributed over the past 250 years. This is so stupid...LMAO!

Snowiest winter in 134 years for the state of NH.

Bring on the global warming, please?

I am not trying to draw a comparison between the ideology of Gore and Goebbels (totally different obviously), there is something similar though in their use of propoganda. Massive budgets thrown at indoctrination and a believe that their viewpoint is the only valid one.

Although I lean toward a believe that GW is not a man made phenomena, I realise that I might well be wrong but I find it offensive that such a budget is used to fund mass propoganda.

"GSN is all for censorship, ehh? How patriotic!"

You are wrong, Rich, and for once it's not about global climate change.

I'm not for censorship. I am all for the good old marketplace of ideas. If your idea (ie., skepticism/denialism) has no merit, you are crazy to expect an equal market share. That's just life. Boo hoo for you.

Now, I'm off to buy a box of flag lapel pins to prove to all the Rich's out there how patriotic I can be.

that man "Infomercial Al" reminds me of an old cartoon...Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, also owned a mansion and a yacht...however, millionaire Infomercial Al is somehow a carbon footless savior of the Planet because his mansion has a solar roof...what a JOKE!!!...how he proclaims with a straight face his disproportionately excessive carbon expellation magically disappears like a fart in the wind is beyond me...his AGW house of cards is about to fold, no matter how much money he throws at it, the truth will endure in the end...it always does...have a nice day bros

All I can say is it's AL Gore, what did we expect. When I think of Al Gore and his crazy antics, I think of South Park and the "Manbearpig" episode.

Sign me up to be in the tiny tiny minority group of AGW skeptics.

It would be nice if the Al Gore organization had donated that money to a fund to help the poor and elderly pay their heat bills in a year that was one of the coldest and snowiest in many parts of the country.

It's interesting how over the relatively short time of its existence this blog has more and more become a playground for fringe denialists. It's almost as if it's being moderated with that outcome in mind, but more likely it's just the case that it has acquired a reputation as a place where the more political sort of denialist comments don't get censored. I suppose this situation shouldn't come as big surprise since AccuWeather is a privately held company with ties to some pretty right-wing Republicans.

Reply: This blog has nothing to do with that. No one tells me what to post and what not to post. I am given a lot of freedom to do what I think is best for this blog. Also, as some of you could of guessed, I am a Democrat. Brett

AccuWeather has a very nice-*sounding* statement on global warming (pasted below for those who haven't seen it), but the problem is that it doesn't distinguish between the science and opinions about the science. That confusion is reflected very well by this blog. It also refers to AccuWeather "scientists," but a further problem is that forecast meteorologists aren't scientists as such. Reply: We aren't? Does AccuWeather have even one climate scientist on staff? (Scientist meaning someone who is engaged in research and publication in peer-reviewed journals.) Reply: I am not totally sure, there are a lot of people who work here.

Brett, I'll close with a few related questions arising from the statement:

Notice that the discussion in the second paragraph about open commenting and debate is keyed on the opening sentence about enhancing scientific understanding. So how do discussions of purely political issues (this very post e.g.) fit into that; IOW how do they enhance scientific understanding? (Reply: I did not see this as a political post. Al Gore is not running for office. If all of my posts were purely scientific then it would get kind of boring in my opinion. I think we need to mix things up to keep it lively. The blog has shown very good growth in popularity and viewership over the past year.

Maybe more to the point, why do so many of the non-political (science-related) posts get loaded up with political commentary? (Reply: I don't know, ask the other commentators. My guess is politics are a big topic now that we are in a big election year) Why not at least keep that material in the political ones? Look for example at the current post on Hansen's discussion of the current La Nina-induced cooling. How many of the comments so far are about the science Hansen discusses in the linked document? (Reply: Not that much.) Is it possible that those comments ere solicited by the way the post was framed (i.e. about Hansen's view of the science rather than the science itself)? Reply: No, I don't think so.

-----------------------------------

"Global climate change is a matter of intense concern and public importance. There can be little doubt that human beings influence the world's climate. At the same time, our knowledge of the extent, progress, mechanisms and results of global climate change is still incomplete. New data are becoming available every day - from tree rings to deep sea samples, ice cores, glacial changes and climatological models - while the greatest minds all over the world are working to better understand climate change and its impact on life on earth.

"Scientific understanding emerges through full consideration of relevant data, appropriate debate and the application of the scientific method. Thus, we urge all scientists and members of the public to engage in the global warming discussion, including AccuWeather.com's experts. We encourage our scientists to express their personal views without the constraint of a corporate position they must follow. We are pleased to offer a major forum on AccuWeather.com for the wide-ranging consideration of this topic.

"In the AccuWeather.com Global Warming Center, you will find links to the latest research, commentary by experts with various points of view on all aspects of climate change, and a forum for you to share your own thoughts, ask questions, and interact with the best scientific minds and knowledge in this area. From time to time, we may post questions about climate change for general consideration and to further stimulate debate. We welcome your contributions to the discussion.

"We encourage you to visit global-warming.accuweather.com often to keep abreast of the discussion."

"Wow! A $300 million dollar ad campaign! Enough money to feed everyone in Africa for about a month."

We spend about $300 million of our taxpayer dollars per day looking for nonexistent WMD in Operation Iraqi Failure. Try to keep things in perspective. At least Gore is spending his money -- and not mine.

Gore is right. There are very few skeptics in the scientific community. There are, in fact, very few skeptics on this blog. Skepticism is much different than denialism.

same names everyday saying the same thing. Tiny, tiny, tiny, teeny tiny, itty-bitty, teeny weeny, tiny, tinier, tiniest, small, little clique. Good luck and keep on denyin'!

Maurizio you mention chemtrails...
"Look also at those believing in chemtrails."

I happen to study jet trails everyday for three and a half years now. I have thousands of photographs of chemtrails, contrails, cirrus clouds and their interactions. This forum is an unbiased exploration of Global Warming through public debate and analysis of data and weather. So what are you suggesting about the people who study the chemtrail controversy? Why is it taboo to suggest that weather modification and weather weapons are very real tools in the millitary industrial complex? The technology our world civilization is using has become so advanced especially with regards to weapons and war that to ignore the topic is putting ones head in the sand. I say truth is the goal here and Al Gore looks very stiff and angry. His remarks blatantly insulting. His ad campaign proof the skeptic minority is big enough to spend 300 million to stiffle with propaganda. Real Climate won't post my comments either, and I am always polite and haven't violated thier TOU either.

Conngrats Brett with the baby! Thanks to Accuweather for all your hard work!

I really like the part where he asks for confirmation that Cheney is the Vice President.

umm yeah, like he, a committed politician doesn't know that.

I wonder how much power his solar panels put out compared to what he is still drawing off the grid.

My buddy Al is having one of his high-carbon-footprint parties in Bangok this week.
http://unfccc.int/meetings/intersessional/awg-lca_1_and_awg-kp_5/items/4288.php

The last three were all in tropical places - Bali/Honolulu/Bangok. I wonder why they don't have them in global warming hot spots like Barrow/Danmarkshavn/Ojmjakon? After all, those are the places which have been "suffering" the most from extreme global warming.

Even Montreal would have been good - supposedly their climate is becoming much like Kingston, Jamaica. Or at least it will be after the snow melts in May or June.

http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=71.29,-156.77
http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/04320/2008/3/28/MonthlyHistory.html
http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/24688.html?MR=1

More historical proof that Mann is correct. There was no little ice age.

The worst cold spells in Britain occurred between 1550 and 1750. The climate during this time was known as the Little Ice Age, when winters were so cold that the Thames froze over each year. It was not uncommon for the freeze to last over three months, as in the case of the winters of 1683 - 1684 and 1715 - 1716.

The first recorded Frost Fair was held on the frozen river Thames in London in 1608. It had tents, sideshows, food stalls and even included ice bowling!

The Thames had frozen over several times before 1608. In the 16th century, Henry VIII is said to have traveled all the way from central London to Greenwich by sleigh along the river during the winter of 1536 and Elizabeth I took walks on the ice during the winter of 1564.

The last Frost Fair was held in the winter of 1814. It began on February 1, and lasted just four days. An elephant was led across the river below Blackfriars Bridge.

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/london/thames.htm

I belive in Global Warming, NOT. After two and a half months of snow every day in Colo (Dec 2 to Feb 14), people who love to ski powder,and who live here in the ski towns, were asking for just one day of sun and no snow. Did I mention that wind chills during that time were reported by ski patrol, day after day at - 50F to -80F, and also steamboat set their all time record for snow in a season, and it is still snow season. And by the way, this is the third winter in a row that the weather in the mountains here, is colder than it has been for the past thirty years.

Who wouldn't be a skeptic? A person would have to be very gullible to not be a skeptic.

The world is going to end...

.....oh but there are 195 countries that have to do nothing about it

and only 36 countries are tasked with saving the planet.

So those 36 countries have to pay carbon taxes, while the rest of the 195 countries have a free for all.

get real, if there were any real science that any of this was real, everyone would have to do something about it.

From my own observations with Internet searches, climate change sceptics well and truly outweigh the bureaucrats view that the common man has boiled the earth (and must be punished by levies which go to the bureaucrats of course).

So to Patrick Henry, I say amen -- if it weren't for the Internet, we would be doomed. Indeed, we need to use this tool more to stop these fools burying carbon dioxide which, in a little bit of science that seems to have escaped them, happens to be burying the oxygen we absolutely need as well (not to mention the other destructive side-effects of their prejudices including, for example, the impact on progress caused by the relentless oppression of the technical classes).

Indeed, the earth is more at risk from the zealous bureaucrat then it is from carbon footprints, terrorism, or anything else.

Al Gore, whose hand I have shaken for what that's worth, is leftwing and thus blinded to this.

The only thing I would check in what Patrick Henry has said is about the great American debating tradition -- I'm not American but certainly America deserves credit for waving the flag for freedom of speech. Long may that last, but this is a truly global threat -- ie: the rise of the bureaucrat.

Al Gore, you're a nice guy but you need to see the bigger picture...

OK GSN. But you laughed "HA" because PH got censored from those sites.

What I got from your "HA" was HAppiness for his censorship.

I think it is un-American. Are those sites based out of Russia? Anyway....

This man's movie cannot be shown to children in England, unless the adults explain to children beforehand that parts of the movie are fiction.

This man is an example of how fiction is over-rated, while fact is disregarded, all too often in modern American life.

Why point a finger at Gore? Nearly every ad you see on TV is a distortion of fact. Millions are made off distorting truth. Why deny poor Gore a few hundred million of his own?

I recently read a poll was taken of college students, and over 50% stated that they had cheated to get better grades. How can anyone blame them, if the example set indicates the way to millions is to distort truth?

However there is a problem with this attitude. It is not based on a foundation of truth. It is not grounded in reality. A day eventually comes when the bleep hits the fan.

Reality has a nasty habit of intruding upon people who have their head so up in the clouds that they lose touch with earth. Perhaps the PDO flips to cold as the AMO stays warm, and a modern Dust Bowl stresses grain prices already stressed by the production of ethanol. Or perhaps an East Coast hurricane topples a skyscraper only designed to withstand 150 mph winds, the same month a forse 8 earthquake hits the west coast. Or perhaps the calamity is completely man-made, like the hyper-inflation which hit Germany prior to Hitler, where a wheelbarrow of money could only buy a postage stamp. Whatever the circumstances may be, people find themselves in a situation where grim realities take presidence over hype, and fashion, and fad, and fiction.

My own experiences of this sort of grim reality include being on a small boat during a big storm at sea. All of a sudden the color of my skin, my political correctness, the money in my wallet, my investments and prospects and popularity didn't matter a bit. Nor did it matter to my shipmates. All that mattered was our ability to face grim truth, work with grim truth, and survive grim truth.

If, as Mr. Bastardi often suggests, we are entering a time of "climatic hardship," we would do well to cultivate an attitude that cares more for facing truth than perpetuating hype.

In theory, this is exactly the attitude a true scientist is suppose to have. In his own way, the slender fellow wearing glasses is brother to the toughest sailor who ever survived a storm.

Mr. Gore, sad to say, is no brother of either.

Hi Steve Bloom,

There is a simple reason why realclimate doesn't have many skeptical posts. It is because they censor them, except for the occasional token post to make it appear that AGW Skeptics are a Tiny, Tiny Minority

Pretty sick and dishonest behavior. What you are seeing here is the same thing you will see on any democratic blog. Every time the BBC opens up a global warming "have your say", the posts are overwhelmingly dominated by skeptics.

The whole scam is completely dependent on censorship and intimidation - which proves unequivocally that AGW can not win a fair fight.

Hi Gazoo,

I live out on the plains along the Front Range. What has been really remarkable about the last couple of winters is how few days we have been able to see the mountains. They have been shrouded in clouds 95% of the time and I often forget that they are there.

When we do get the occasional peek at the peaks, they appear to be buried in very deep snow.

I confess that I find Gore repulsive and so I can't be rationale when it comes to him. I see crazy in his eyes and always have. I have the Gore derangement syndrome. Gore shouldn't be using the us against them mentality when trying to unite everybody to his cause. I see fringe elements depending on the isssue every day of my life. For the most part it is virtually impossible to challenge these folks to consider the other voice if for only a brief minute. They never listen to the other side as they are already planning the next verbal attack. So instead of coming together to sort through all the information to try to find some grounds for agreement it is an all or nothing approach. My way or the highway. I see this all too often these days and frankly the moment I sense that approach, I feel compelled to back away so I don't get caught up in the drama. At this point, I am a pretty big skeptic but still read every link provided on both sides. The moment a poster starts belittling the intelligence of the other side, I stop listening to the attacker. It is possible to win a debate without running down the other person.

Skepticism is what makes anything survive. be skeptical of anything you dont know. But going with the group is also inbred in many creatures on this earth. So we have the people that jump off the GW bridge because its all over the media, and the skeptics that look from all angles that they can imagine and come to the conclusion; Is there water at the bottom? I'd really hate the mass media sending everbody to their deaths because of people wanting to go with the trend and not take the time to think for themselves.

Do we really know how any of these actions people are taking to stop "GW" will truely affect the earth? Perhaps we will find out on the next episode.

Wonder if Gore is going to participate in this?http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080329/ap_on_sc/world_lights_out. I sure don't plan to.

What global warming?

What is the normal temperature of the earth?

According to this NPR article, the oceans are not warming. Aren't they a bigger heat sink than the air?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

kevinag,

Any answers to my above questions? You are a storm trooper, correct?

Mayor Ken Livingstone, who recently enacted a $20,000 per year carbon tax on many car owners in London, appears likely to lose his job in the coming election.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/03/29/do2901.xml

I must admit I am a rank neophyte when it comes to climate debates. I came to this site to learn because I am so concerned about our country`s energy security. The attacks being waged against fossil fuels and now biofuels scares me. I have found the alarmists not only go after the deniers but those who believe in AGW but think the total benefits of global warming far outweigh any downside risk. I read every entry on this site very carefully. And to Brett, thanks for allowing me to post now and then although I come here from a perspective that is different from most of the others.

Another poorly understood connection between the sun's weather and earth's weather.

March 20, 2008: What are the signs of spring? They are as familiar as a blooming Daffodil, a songbird at dawn, a surprising shaft of warmth from the afternoon sun.

And, oh yes, don't forget the aurora borealis.

Spring is aurora season. For reasons not fully understood by scientists, the weeks around the vernal equinox are prone to Northern Lights. Canadians walking their dogs after dinner, Scandinavians popping out to the sauna, Alaskan Huskies on the Iditarod trail�all they have to do is look up and behold, green curtains of light dancing across the night sky. Spring has arrived!

This is a bit of a puzzle. Auroras are caused by solar activity, but the Sun doesn't know what season it is on Earth.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/20mar_spring.htm

But seriously though, the only people that will benefit from the global warming carbon credit scam are people like Al Gore who is making money from this lie.

Get down on your knees and thank whoever you pray to that that man did not become president of the United States.

Sydney, Australia had a lights out "earth hour" today to fight "global warming."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/29/asia/AS-GEN-World-Lights-Out.php

Appropriately, they are just coming off one of the coldest and wettest summers on record.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23314972-11949,00.html

And the outlook is for more cold across the entire continent.
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp7.html

Maybe if they raise carbon taxes they can make it even colder heading into winter, since people won't be able to afford their utility bills?

This shows exactly why we wouldn't want him for President and also why he never will be President. People don't like being lied to. Keep in mind this is Al Gore. Would we really expect him to say anything different? 300 million dollars is such a waste. Fortunately when the hype is over this may be the one main issue that will stick in people's minds and make them never forget. There is a silver lining here.

Regarding Steve Bloom's comments on AccuWeather:

Welcome to the world of ad hominem arguments Brett. AccuWeather offers a forum where all points of view can be expressed and critiqued. Mr. Bloom disagrees with some of the views, therefore he seems to suspects that the fact that these 'incorrect opinions' are allowed (as opposed to other sites where only the correct opinions are allowed) is indicative of the ties of AccuWeather to some "pretty right-wing Republicans" or at least is a result of your inability to distinguish between science and opinion about science since AccuWeather doesn't have any 'real' scientist any way. Now it's at least clear what Mr. Bloom's idea of an appropriate debate is.

I for one want to express my gratitude that AccuWeather offers this forum. I have found it, the various comments, and the various links posted by the commenters have provided an excellent education on this complex and contentious subject.

GET ON THE BANDWAGON, GUYS!

Lights Out Tonight Across Metro Atlanta For Earth Hour

POSTED: 10:04 am EDT March 24, 2008
UPDATED: 8:12 am EDT March 29, 2008

[NEWSVINE: Lights Out Tonight Across Metro Atlanta For Earth Hour] [DELICIOUS: Lights Out Tonight Across Metro Atlanta For Earth Hour] [DIGG: Lights Out Tonight Across Metro Atlanta For Earth Hour] [FACEBOOK: Lights Out Tonight Across Metro Atlanta For Earth Hour] [REDDIT: Lights Out Tonight Across Metro Atlanta For Earth Hour] [RSS] [PRINT: Lights Out Tonight Across Metro Atlanta For Earth Hour] [EMAIL: Lights Out Tonight Across Metro Atlanta For Earth Hour]
What Is Earth Hour?

On March 29, 2008 millions of people around the world will join together to "turn off the lights" for an hour to make a bold statement about climate change. Earth Hour will demonstrate that by working together, each one of us can make a positive impact in the fight against global warming. Governments, businesses, communities and individuals on six continents will participate in Earth Hour and agree to make changes that will curb their carbon dioxide emissions.

In the United States, Chicago has been selected as the flagship city for Earth Hour, with Atlanta, Phoenix and San Francisco joining the movement as well. Grassroots community groups, local businesses and committed individuals are also organizing Earth Hour events in their cities and towns.

Everyone Can Have An Impact

# Sign-up at EarthHour.org

# Turn off lights from 8-9 pm on Saturday, March 29, 2008

# During that hour, replace old light bulbs with energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs)

# Commit to reducing energy consumption in the year ahead

# Visit EarthHour.org to learn how to make a difference in the fight against climate change

Climate Change

Climate change is perhaps the most significant issue facing our planet today. Average annual carbon emissions in the U.S. alone measure nearly 20 tons per person. We are beginning to witness dramatic impacts -- from melting glaciers to increased intensity and frequency of hurricanes -- as a result of the amount of carbon we load into the atmosphere.

The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 1990 -- 2006 was the hottest yet. Arctic sea ice has declined to the lowest levels on record, and studies suggest that two-thirds of the world�s polar bear population will be gone by 2050. But more than polar bears and ice caps are at risk -- climate change endangers all life on our planet. To alter the current course of climate change we must act now.

WWF and Climate Change

WWF is working to stop climate change by providing cutting-edge science, championing policies to reduce carbon emissions and mobilizing businesses to drive new and innovative solutions. With a team of dedicated experts working in more than 50 countries, we are focusing our efforts on four areas where we can have the most impact:

# Engaging business to take action. WWF has worked to get 12 major companies to commit to reducing their carbon emissions by over 10 million tons each year.
# Protecting forests that help mitigate climate change. Deforestation accounts for 20 percent of all global carbon emissions.
# Implementing adaptation plans for high risk communities. We help prepare for impacts from climate change.
# Creating responsible global warming policies. WWF is pushing for domestic and international policies to increase the use of renewable energy sources, encourage implementation of energy-efficient technologies, and limit carbon dioxide pollution.

What You Can Do

# Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs to save money and reduce emissions. Lighting accounts for around 5 percent of household greenhouse gas emissions, and compact fluorescents use 75 percent less energy than incandescent bulbs. Although the CFL bulbs are more expensive initially, they ultimately cost less through energy savings and extended life of the bulb.
# Turn off appliances when not in use. Switch off TVs, computers, lights, etc. which are not being used and unplug items on standby, like cell phone chargers and countertop appliances.
# Switch to green power. Contact your electricity provider and switch to green power, a cleaner, more renewable form of energy.
# Use less hot water. Save water and electricity by reducing shower time by at least one minute.
# Sign Up for Earth Hour. Join this global event by turning off lights, switching to CFL bulbs and pledging to make changes that will reduce carbon emissions.

A skeptic is the very personification of science. Scientists, by definition, are skeptics and constantly question those things held up as truths. Without skepticism, there would be no science. More evidence that Al is clueless.

What's Al Gore's point? The important point is whether the various disaster scenarios are likely, and whether the proposed solutions are better.

If AGW is true, the ONLY way to stop it is for 5/6 of the world's population to die and the remaining 6th to adopt a pre-industrial lifestyle (so they can be wiped out by something else - cold perhaps, or maybe smallpox).

If AGW is true and we do nothing, this will supposedly happen anyway.

The other scenario is that the whole AGW thing is overblown. When the oil runs out in a couple of hundred years we may find ourselves going pre-industrial anyway, but hey - if AGW is true, it would be better to be pre-industrial in a warm, crop friendly atmosphere laden with CO2 than a cold one.

You don't just have to sceptical about the science - you can also be sceptical about the proposed solutions. Let's face it - there is no way our rapidly industrialising globe is compatible with any form of emmission reduction, and there is no viable technology to make it so either.

Is the solution of de-industrialising better than the actual problem itself (central to which, is, er, the collapse of the industrialised world economies under unbearable climatic/ population/ food/ natural disaster pressuers etc. etc. etc.)? Hmmmm... I doubt it

We might as well wait and see!

Sorry Al, calling people names and spending $300 mil wont stop the thinking people of the world from exposing your scam. The alphabet networks and 60 minutes in particular may be trying to help you brainwash the simple sheeple who believe anything they broadcast, but most of them will eventually hear the truth and you will fall real hard. (I know Al can't read this. His yes people would never let him be exposed to reality!) Refreshing spring snowfall in Seattle area last few days. while that was occuring the other morning, local Ch13 news was running a story on how "scientists" are goreing er I mean growing more concerned about earlier and earlier springs!Their desperation is truly revealing. Paul

Hello..hello...any Global Warning Believers { a.k.a stormtroopers} out there..out there.....out there, I thought you were the majority. I still am looking for answers to my questions from my blog I wrote above. Gotta go, I need to turn the old p.c off for an hour to help save the death star. s.ss.ss.s. Thats right R.2, we shut the power down right away.

Maybe this explains the $300 million: The London Telegraph has come out with this article: "Senior Democrats mull Gore's nomination" Oh my God!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/30/wuspols130.xml

To put the whole Climate Change issue into perspective vis-a-vis the Peak Oil Crisis, everyone needs to ask themselves, their associates, all sitting elected officials and those seeking office, especially the office of President of the United States, "What is more threatening in both the long and short terms, a beneficial 1 degree F rise in average world temperatures over the past 100 years, or a 1 percent decline in world oil production over the last 100 weeks - with steepening declines forecast? Furthermore, can our economy better deal with declining fuel inventories in an environment of persistent warming, or in an environment of declining average temperatures over the next several decades, the most likely scenario given the highly reliable solar inertial motion (SIM) model forecasts of climate change?� Solar cycle # 24 will tell the tale. The problem is not AGW. The problem is the end of cyclical warming coincident with the onset of Peak Oil.

"Wow! A $300 million dollar ad campaign! Enough money to feed everyone in Africa for about a month."

REPLY: And what are you doing about starvation in Africa? Do tell, Mr. "We Are The World???" (Just so everyone knows, irrelevent to the blog).

We spend about $300 million of our taxpayer dollars per day looking for nonexistent WMD in Operation Iraqi Failure.

REPLY: Failure in your own mind. (Just so everyone knows, irrelevent to the blog).

Try to keep things in perspective. At least Gore is spending his money -- and not mine.

REPLY: Oh my lord, someone get this man some glasses before he walks into the wall!!!!

Gore is right.

REPLY: Gore is a fraud!!!!

There are very few skeptics in the scientific community. There are, in fact, very few skeptics on this blog.

REPLY: Hey Brett! Didn't you do a survey as to which category all of us here in the GW Blogosphere fell in? Denier. Skeptic. Believer? And didn't the Skeptics show a majority by a landslide????? Ah yes, here's the link:

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/01/which_group_do_you_fall_into.html#comments

You all can do the math. Of course, in Mark's mind, if you are a skeptic, you are a Flat Earther, right, old buddy? Just following along with the Al Gore scripture.

In closing, I have to say Mark, once again, you have proven to the world that you are totally clueless. Here's hoping it keeps up. I have been pretty hungry these last couple of days and need to load up.........;-DDDDDDDD.......

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE.......

Oiz,

You are correct. There are clearly more skeptics here, it couldn't be more obvious. But it is Mark, what do you expect?

So Gore spent proceeds from his movie and book deal to pay for this $300 million advertising, ehh? LMAO! Where the hell did he get the other Quarter of a billion dollars from?

And if we (skeptics) are a minority, then why spend all of this money to push his agenda? Something stinks, and it's not the exhaust from my SUV.

Oiz, I am with you. I DENY that mans contribution of .0087% atmospheric CO2 is having a "significant" role in GW.

Ozio,

(Sorry Brett if you think this is off topic, but have to respond to Ozo)

First of all, Iraq is a failure in most people's minds. Secondly, the comment about feeding Africa was made by Patrick Henry, and my comment about Iraq was a response to him. It's actually related to this topic. The right-wing, which claims to be for an individual's freedom to do as they please with their money, criticize Gore and Branson for how they want to spend their money. And yet, we spend the equivalent of Gore's ad campaign -- 300 million dollars - of my tax dollars funding the failure in Iraq, and I'm "un-American" to criticize that. LOL!

The reason that "survey" says there are more skeptics on this site is because nearly all of the Deniers characterized themselves as "skeptics" on that poll. But, make no mistake, there is a huge difference between a denier and a skeptic, and you guys are deniers.

Most people on this blog are Deniers. I would characterize someone like Gary B as a skeptic.

Rich,
Gore used the profits from his movie and his book, along with the cash award from the Nobel Prize, and matched that cash award with his own money, to fund the ad campaign. In other words, it's all his money. It's going to be great seeing your former hero, Newt Gingrich, raise awareness about climate change in the commercials.

Hi Mark,

I'd rather avoid again going through the exceptionally tedious argument as to the inappropriateness of the term "denier" so why don't you take page from your more reasonable older brother, BT, and use a term somewhat less offensive.

Mark,

Will you be willing to analyze the ad campaign. Analyze propaganda versus science. Fluff versus substance, etc.

I would imagine with the science "so settled" these commercials will not need to resort to scare tactics or propoganda to get their point across. The science should speak for itself.

I better not see one Polar Bear floating on a small ice chunk or anything like that. I better see science, otherwise, well the science must not be that settled.

I k

"Ooooh, the economy will collapse if we regulate such-and-such." Well, we've done a lot of regulating since then; we've all seen the benefits of cleaner air and water, and oh, the economy didn't collapse, much to the chagrin of the corporate apologists."

That is a quote from back in May of 07 from Mark...

How is that economoy doing right now buddy? Looks like you jumped the gun on this, just like you are jumping the gun on AGW.

Mark, Yeah Gore used his scare tactic hoax money. Which he robbed from pathetic uneducated individuals and that is sad and about as sad as someone saying that Iraq is a failure, why are you allowd to write what you want on here, because of freedom, freedom of speech how did that happen, by the VOLUNTEERS OF THE UNITED STATES STANDING UP AND SACRIFICING to keep this country to remain what it is, and that is the best country on earth and to hear people downplay this is very disgraceful, someone given up their life and then there family is to hear people say all that is was a waste of time and money, sad, very sad. I really wonder if some people really think things through or just picture your own country as the enemy over there picking a fight, yeah time, lives, money, is lost but that has been and will be the cost to remain what we are, is everything honky dory where you just say hey timeout no more fighting lets be friends, it don't work that way with these people, they simply would do anything possible destroy this country if they could and what would you do, let em. Action is the offense and defense in this, has been and always will be, no one likes it, sure it would be great if it was different but your talking about nuts that there main objective in life is to destroy life. Sorry to extend the off topic discussion Brett, but wow it unreal that some think this way. All I say is ignore you t.v and get some info somewhere else so you can see alittle truth, its out there but alittle hard to find.

Mark,

I appreciate your input.

First of all, this whole AGW movement has become one tied in with environmental issues. We have down shifted from global warming to protecting the environment, all while maintaining the same speed over ground. Believe me, I get pissed off when I see people littering. What part of conservation and being a conservative don't you get? I spent 6.5 years performing environemental protection for the government. But AGW and EP are 2 different things, with 2 different approaches. They mistakingly get lumped in together.

2.) Newt Gingrich is not my hero. He cheated on his wife, as did Bill. So he falls short of recieving any praise from me. Sorry, but I don't numbingly nod my head to anyone with an R beside their names. If it's logical, I'll agree.

3.) It's not ALL Al Gores money. Give me a break. The cash award for the Nobel is $1 million, which he matched. That makes $2 million. He received NO more than $45 million in proceeds for his book, his movie and his speeches (and that is being wicked generous.) So we are left with a shortfall of a QUARTER of a BILLION dollars. Where did it come from? I know and I am sure you do to. Special interest, investors, lenders, etc. Gore doesn't have that kind of money on hand.

4.) There are more skeptics who post here. I don't know what else to tell you? Ask the boss man (Brett) what he thinks.

5.) Most people do not see Iraq as a failure. They want to see an end to the war, as do I, no doubt. But to call it a failure is an insult to those who gave their lives for the cause of freedom and prosperity. I could write 10 paragraphs explaining why, but this is not the place. So, let's just let it go.

6.) The cost of the war is inflated by anti-war politicians, geared to help raise outrage throughout their political base. The following does not include the "deep-water project", for this falls under the Department of Homeland Security.

Even if we were not in Iraq, we would still need to pay for all our progressive military requirements. These offsets include upgrading our equipment, standardization, uniformity, maintenance, training, supplying, etc. These things get thrown into the total cost of the war. This is manipulating the figures, which leads to inflated and incorrect data. Kind of like what Hansen does.

A little tid bit for you. China has increased it's defense spending by double digits every year over the past decade (that we know about.) That's one large, powerful, and well funded army that grows more and more every year. What are they doing? I have an idea. Do you?

Later man.

Oiz,

You are correct. There are clearly more skeptics here, it couldn't be more obvious. But it is Mark, what do you expect?

So Gore spent proceeds from his movie and book deal to pay for this $300 million advertising, ehh? LMAO! Where the hell did he get the other Quarter of a billion dollars from?

And if we (skeptics) are a minority, then why spend all of this money to push his agenda? Something stinks, and it's not the exhaust from my SUV.

Oiz, I am with you. I DENY that mans contribution of .0087% atmospheric CO2 is having a "significant" role in GW.

REPLY: Solid, brother! And we need to do more. I just wrote both PA Senators expressing my displeasure with Congress and wacked Enviro-Policies with regard to Oil, and other things. We need to keep fighting this garbage, Rich. Otherwise, the elitests will win. The loonies on the left are always squaking "Take Back America." It's time we Americans take back America! Keep on fighting, bro. And as always:

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

How is that economy doing right now buddy? Looks like you jumped the gun on this, just like you are jumping the gun on AGW.

REPLY: Nah, c'mon Veets. The downturn in the economy has nothing to do with the touchee-feely regulations. It's all Bush's fault. What's the matter with you???.....;-D......

If Skeptics like myself are such a tiny, tiny minority, maybe there are only 300 of us. And if Gore is going to spend 300 million changing our minds, that would mean we get a million each.

Yippie!

"How is that economy doing right now buddy? Looks like you jumped the gun on this, just like you are jumping the gun on AGW."

The economy has tanked due to the largely unregulated financial sector. This further proves the point I've been hammering all along: that most our economic downturns in our history have been due to lack of regulations or proper oversight, rather than having too much of them. Unbridled laissez faire has crashed many economies. It, much like Communism, is one of those things that looks great on paper, but when applied to the real world, falls on its face.

Rich,
The funding for Iraq is completely separate from defense funding. That is why you see the Iraq appropriations bill being voted on separately every year. It is not a part of the defense bill. It isn't even part of our annual budget. It's basically an add-on which gets voted separately every year. And quite an expensive add-on at over $100 billion per year.

Defense funding is bloated as well. It's funny how the so-called fiscal conservatives criticize pork projects, but what they don't tell us is that there is more "pork" in the defense bill than in all the other bills combined, even including the highway bill. If you actually read through our defense bills, you'd laugh at some of the projects that are getting funded, some of which have nothing to do with defense. Regarding China's defense spending -- China's economic growth has been in the double-digits over the past decade, so it makes perfect sense that their spending on all facets of society should be increasing by double-digits, as well. What's your point?

Regarding the funding for Gore's climate change ad campaign -- even if it were investors and lobbyists funding it, that is still private money. I thought conservatives are supposed to be in favor of private funding. I guess not when it runs contrary to their misguided political beliefs. What you also may not realize is that Gore bought a large chunk of the Google IPO a few years ago, and since that stock has gone through the roof, he has made a huge chunk of change off of that.

I look forward to the Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson commercials.

Mark,

The financial sector has only become more regulated over the course of time. The financial sector is fairly regulated, just the wrong regulations were made.

Mark,

I am going to let this go. I am trying to honor Bretts request to minimize the off topic stuff.

You are correct, but also incorrect regarding the cost of the war. And we are winning. Haven't you seen the news?

Oiz,

Keep up the good fight my man. I wish there were of you out there. But for me, I am getting tired of arguing over a few "theoretical" degrees. Apparently there is nothing more important than warmth.

I was able to walk across the ice on top of my pool yesterday. We are heading towards an AGW meltdown, but it'll be a while before we enjoy our pool. I just can't win.

I'm looking forward to reading Brett's complete and honest opinion regarding AGW, especially CO2.

Seen the news, what like NBC,ABC,CBS,CNN, I haven't seen the news I've heard it on the EIB radio network!