Might I remind you gents that posting other people's personal details doesn't get you a warning - you get to walk the plank instead. Don't do it.

Al Gore in his living room taking apart Tipper's Blackberry to see what's in it.

What is important is that I have yet to see.....the film.

It's ok Spee you don't have to keep explaining yourself to me,

I had it figured out about 10 posts ago. ZzZzZzZzZzZz

Jesus H. Chocolate Christ - this is Bedlam...

Can you prove that Jesus was made of chocolate?

Are you some kind of goddamn closet commie fairy?

The Nashville Scene confirmed the rumor that the Tennessean had the Al Gore “Energy Hog” story for more than a month but never ran it. Editor Mark Silverman denies that it had anything to do with favoritism, bias, or wanting to make sure that nothing came between Al and Oscar. Instead, he told the Scene that they were busy “working on other stories.” Uh, huh...stopped believing in the Tooth Fairy too long time ago.

Erm.... by the way - I did challenge Boon Mee (or was it Spee?) to start this thread: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...71711&st=30

I'd just like to say thankyou for the honour of taking up my challenge and perhaps these following words could be accepted into the argument on global warming/ climate change:

Famine, pestilence and plague are just some of the health consequences facing the world if the earth's temperature continues to rise unabated. International expert, Professor Tony McMichael from Australia National University, will spell out the real apocalypse coming our way at the National Rural Health conference being held in Albury this week, which is that the knock-on mental health impact of the drought is just the tip of the steadily melting iceberg. He says we have been too slow to understand the threat of climate change to healthy life. "Instead" McMichael says, "we have focused most of our attention on 'sustaining' our economy, property, recreational options and the wonders of David Attenborough's world."

He ought to know. He chaired the assessment of health risks for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) during 1993-2001 and has been centrally involved in IPCC's 4th Report that will be released next month.

"The UK Stern Report thundered about the great risk to the world's economic system. Yet, the much more fundamental risk is to the world's life-support systems," he says.

Climate change and health is an emerging area of study and one that, to date, has been ignored in Australia. Internationally this is not the case. The World Health Organisation estimates that there are 150,000 deaths annually in developing countries because of climate change. People are dying from malaria in places where once the mosquitoes never survived. In Sweden, viral encephalitis has been moving northwards and claiming lives since 1980. Climate change also explains why the oyster beds around the Alaskan coast have become contaminated with bacteria that cause life-threatening food poisoning.

http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=252940

Professor ..... from Australia National University ....

From what I could gather, this professor is a epidemiologist, not a climatologist. Human physiology is a far cry from geophysics. From the uni's website:

http://nceph.anu.edu.au/Staff_Students/sta...s/mcmichael.php

Research Interests

Environmental health (epidemiological studies, risk assessment) - including particular interest in causation of autoimmune diseases

Environmental and social influences on infectious disease emergence and occurrence

Ecological sustainability and health (including global climate change, biodiversity loss, etc.)

Urban environment: social and physical influences on patterns of health

Diet, nutrition, energy balance and health - population and individual aspects

On one hand, it appears he is emminently qualified as an expert in discussing how humans respond in varying climate and environment. On the other hand, nowhere does it indicate that he has or claims to have any expertise in climatology or conclusively validating the causal relationships in Earth's climate.

He's obviously extremely intelligent and educated and has a huge amount of experience and expertise in his chosen field. But one wouldn't think that might make him an expert in another field. All of his recent works appear to be focused on human health, which is his chosen field. I didn't see anything in there about climatological research. A relative of mine is a brilliant and highly experienced physician, but would never claim to be an expert in brain surgery, neurosurgery or pharmacology.

If situation "x" happens in the climate, then humans will likely react as in "y." This is what his recent publication in The Lancet appears to say. The paper attempts to draw causal relationships between climate change and changes in human health. Fine. Great. But what does it have to with the physics of what is actually going on with the Earth? And whether or not man has any impact on it or ability to control it? Nothing.

Interesting post, website and link the Lancet article. But there doesn't appear to be much relevance.

Professor ..... from Australia National University ....

From what I could gather, this professor is a epidemiologist, not a climatologist. Human physiology is a far cry from geophysics. From the uni's website:

http://nceph.anu.edu.au/Staff_Students/sta...s/mcmichael.php

Research Interests

Environmental health (epidemiological studies, risk assessment) - including particular interest in causation of autoimmune diseases

Environmental and social influences on infectious disease emergence and occurrence

Ecological sustainability and health (including global climate change, biodiversity loss, etc.)

Urban environment: social and physical influences on patterns of health

Diet, nutrition, energy balance and health - population and individual aspects

On one hand, it appears he is emminently qualified as an expert in discussing how humans respond in varying climate and environment. On the other hand, nowhere does it indicate that he has or claims to have any expertise in climatology or conclusively validating the causal relationships in Earth's climate.

He's obviously extremely intelligent and educated and has a huge amount of experience and expertise in his chosen field. But one wouldn't think that might make him an expert in another field. All of his recent works appear to be focused on human health, which is his chosen field. I didn't see anything in there about climatological research. A relative of mine is a brilliant and highly experienced physician, but would never claim to be an expert in brain surgery, neurosurgery or pharmacology.

If situation "x" happens in the climate, then humans will likely react as in "y." This is what his recent publication in The Lancet appears to say. The paper attempts to draw causal relationships between climate change and changes in human health. Fine. Great. But what does it have to with the physics of what is actually going on with the Earth? And whether or not man has any impact on it or ability to control it? Nothing.

Interesting post, website and link the Lancet article. But there doesn't appear to be much relevance.

No relation or relevance whatsoever - except we happen to live on Earth!!!! (and the evidence is painstakingly clear)

So in other words, you can't back up your claim?

Watch, listen and learn as 9 world class and internationally recognized scientists in relevant fields of study debunk the hype of global warming and completely discredit the Oscar-winning diatribe from "the man who used to be the next President of the United States."

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites...arming_swindle/

Science fact v. Science fiction. Reality v. "chicken-littling." If this were a heavyweight title fight, the referee would have stopped it in the first round.

To paraphrase Lt.Col. Kilgore ....

I love the smell of validation in the morning .... it smells like ..... satisfaction!

So in other words, you can't back up your claim?

Watch, listen and learn as 9 world class and internationally recognized scientists in relevant fields of study debunk the hype of global warming and completely discredit the Oscar-winning diatribe from "the man who used to be the next President of the United States."

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites...arming_swindle/

Science fact v. Science fiction. Reality v. "chicken-littling." If this were a heavyweight title fight, the referee would have stopped it in the first round.

To paraphrase Lt.Col. Kilgore ....

I love the smell of validation in the morning .... it smells like ..... satisfaction!

Why are you using another poster's (cndvic) quote? I don't need to back up my claim as I don't have a claim! I do know however that humans are detrimenting this planet's survival mechanisms far more rapidly than at any other time in recent history. I don't have to back this up as it is a well-known scientific FACT!

Actually as he's pirouetting around his flat in a victory dance, he's forgetting that I mearly challenged him to find a source to back up his claims, which he sort of managed after only about six days.

Good on ya

... I mearly challenged him to find a source to back up his claims, which he sort of managed after only about six days.

So what is the real problem here? The time lag in responding? Or that the scientific facts completely overwhelm the propaganda-driven science fiction?

A couple more juicy bits for all the "doubting Thomases."

- Let's confirm that the primary reference for all conclusions drawn in "An Inconvenient Truth" are from a single Antarctic ice core study, a study which is scoffed at and treated as fundamentally flawed research in the science community. Yet there is Algore, on stage using this research to make statements that humans causing CO2 content to increase is followed by a similar rise in global temperatures .... yada, yada, yada.

As was pointed out in the "Global Warming Swindle", there are many many other ice core studies from all over the world and guess what ...... their research findings all verify the exact same thing and guess what again ...... it is the exact opposite of the Gore-ist propaganda in "An Inconvenient Truth." This research, both validated and well acccepted the specific science community, validates the theory that it is global temperature increase that causes CO2 levels to increase and not the other way around.

And if that is not enough .....

- All the enviro-extremists and myth perpetuators claim CO2 as the source of problems in global warming and humans impact on CO2 growth cause those problems. Well let's look at the facts. CO2 makes up a grand total of ....... (don't hold your breath) ..... 00.03% of the atmosphere. And of that three one-hundredths of one percent, human contribution makes up only a small fraction. The oceans contribution to atmospheric CO2 is many times that of humans. Again, this is a proven fact that is completely indisputable.

As one scientist in the "Great Swindle" stated in an ironic comparison of the myth CO2 effects on global warming, using a car as a hypothetical example. If the global climate was a car, the sun would be the engine and the atmosphere would be the transmission. When considering CO2 effects on global climate change, would be like trying to analyze car trouble and looking for the problem in a lugnut on the rear wheel without first looking at the engine and transmission. Humorous. Ironic. And spot on.

So what's the big mystery? A small part of a small number means essentially nothing in terms of global climate change. Humankind's input to CO2 levels in the atmosphere is .............insignificant. All of the relevant science verifies it.

IMHO, that is the hardest part for people to accept, the fact that humankind is so utterly insignificant in Mother Nature's grand scheme with global climate.

Okey Cokey pig in a a pokey!!!

Here we go then....

Global warming is happening .. FACT

Man made Carbon Dioxide emissions are increasing... FACT

Man made CO2 emissions cause global warming.... LIE! NOT TRUE... FALSE...

There is absolutely no evidence for anything in Al Gores film that is supported by the science!!... FACT

In fact the exact opposite is actually true... the proportion of CO2 emissions that are man made is so small they are in comparison to all the other emissions of CO2 from animals( 5 Gigatons compared to 1000 gigatons ), that they are wholly insignificant. CO2 itself is a very minor player in the greenhouse gas story, hardly worth a mention really!!

The evidence that rises in CO2 lead to rises in global temperature are wholly untrue, they match the rises and falls of temperature graphs as seen in Al Gores film closely over 1000's of years.. but they neglected to say that it was CO2 that follows temperature rises NOT the other way around.

Unfortunately so much shit science is being thrown around that it's almost impossible for those that know this to actually get heard!!

If you want proof go look for it and if anyone says different smack them in the face and tell them they are full of shit!!

Have a nice day!!

So have you watched the film yet Spee?

However he does describe Gore as an "elitist self righteous hypocrite"

You state this as if I'm the only one saying it. People have been saying it more or less for the guy's entire public life. This recent nonsense with global warming fear-mongering while living a lifestyle that is opposed to everything he preaches, is just the latest in a long line of hypocracies. The fact that you may be unaware of these things doesn't make them any less true.

.... and implies he uses distortion to advance his case.

I did not imply it. I stated it as a matter of fact because the Algore has himself stated it as a matter of fact. What part of this is difficult to comprehend and accept? That I said it? Or that he said it?

I

wonder how Spee feels about himself.

Why do you choose to try to thread hijack and try to make this a personal issue with me, instead of what was in the original post and related comments? Didn't endure just hand out a bunch of wrist slaps about that kind of stuff?

I didn't consider my thread a post hi-jack because half of it related directly to the question of

Antarctic ice-melt and the half you selectively quoted referred to your posts in this thread.

If you are going to post on a forum , and especially if you offer contentiious posts you need

to be a little less sensitive. Your remark about Endure raised a wry smile because I thought

I maybe had offended YOU on YOUR forum so my response was tongue in cheek as was my

PM to Endure. My tongue's natural position is in my cheek , it is only removed when I fly my

national airline (which is rare these days). If you keep this in mind it may help your blood

pressure in the future.

What is important is that I have yet to see you or anyone take statements from the film and trace it to published scientific facts or research. Whereas on the other hand, there is a ton of published work to indicate that the film is much more science fiction then it is about science fact.

You yourself you hadn't seen the film. I haven't seen it. Has anybody seen it yet ?

Nobody's seen it but you can open a thread on it and spout ?

For people like you who may not have dealt much in the world of science and research (whereas I spent more than 25% of my professional life in the middle of it), for all intents and purposes things can be simplified down to about five different positions:

1) Something is undeniably proven as fact. (If you drop a rock, it will fall to the ground.)

2) Something can be taken as fact within a reasonable or proven degree of certainty. (If proper procedures are followed, the shuttle will launch safely.)

3) Something is completely uncertain. (The Earth as we know it will come to an end in 10,000 years.)

4) Something can be taken as non-fact within a reasonable or proven degree of certainty. (You will some day be as rich as Bill Gates.)

5) Something is undeniably proven as non-fact. (Homosapiens has been present for the entire lifetime of the Earth.)

This frankly is pathetic. "Something is completely uncertain. (The Earth as we know it will come to an end in 10,000 years.)" Are you a fundamentalist judaeo/christian ? From what I read the planet is approx

4.5 billion years old. What do you mean by "as we know it" ? McDonalds cease to appear in the poorest

spots on the globe ? Scientists? Don't they check their facts for fear of being ridiculed ?

In the film, Gore takes all 5 of these, puts them into a big mixing bowl, adds in a bottle of snake oil, and serves up a big plate of discombobulated opinionated agenda-driven Algore goulash. And for a reason!! Science fiction is always much more entertaining and grasping than science fact. (Well ... for the most gullible anyway). Does anyone think he would have won an Oscar with 90 minutes worth of "don't worry, I've checked and everything is fine."

To your last question - no. The man is a politician. He is pushing an issue. This is how it is done.

Global warming is happening .. FACT

Man made Carbon Dioxide emissions are increasing... FACT

Man made CO2 emissions cause global warming.... LIE! NOT TRUE... FALSE...

There is absolutely no evidence for anything in Al Gores film that is supported by the science!!... FACT

Unfortunately so much shit science is being thrown around that it's almost impossible for those that know this to actually get heard!!

If you want proof go look for it and if anyone says different smack them in the face and tell them they are full of shit!!

Have a nice day!!

Okee dokee Flinty!

I did a google straw poll for you;

Results 1 - 10 of about 936,000 for global warming is linked to co2 emissions.

Results 1 - 10 of about 889,000 for global warming is not linked to co2 emissions.

What does this prove?,

that it's a pretty fairly divided opinion,

out of all those results there has to be some <deleted> science amongst it,

you can always find an opinion on the internet to match your own.

I did a google straw poll for you;

Results 1 - 10 of about 936,000 for global warming is linked to co2 emissions.

Results 1 - 10 of about 889,000 for global warming is not linked to co2 emissions.

What does this prove?,

that it's a pretty fairly divided opinion,

But one of those opinions sells more newspapers and puts more bums on cinema seats than the other one.

(P.S. post above the one above the one above this one. Measure the history of the Earth in Billions of years)

Okey Cokey pig in a a pokey!!!

Here we go then....

Global warming is happening .. FACT

Man made Carbon Dioxide emissions are increasing... FACT

Man made CO2 emissions cause global warming.... LIE! NOT TRUE... FALSE...

There is absolutely no evidence for anything in Al Gores film that is supported by the science!!... FACT

In fact the exact opposite is actually true... the proportion of CO2 emissions that are man made is so small they are in comparison to all the other emissions of CO2 from animals( 5 Gigatons compared to 1000 gigatons ), that they are wholly insignificant. CO2 itself is a very minor player in the greenhouse gas story, hardly worth a mention really!!

The evidence that rises in CO2 lead to rises in global temperature are wholly untrue, they match the rises and falls of temperature graphs as seen in Al Gores film closely over 1000's of years.. but they neglected to say that it was CO2 that follows temperature rises NOT the other way around.

Unfortunately so much shit science is being thrown around that it's almost impossible for those that know this to actually get heard!! If you want proof go look for it and if anyone says different smack them in the face and tell them they are full of shit!!

Have a nice day!!

Excellent post there, ourmanflint

Ill wind puts climate change on top of agenda

March 10, 2007

This week scientists reported that Asia's growing air pollution is making the Pacific region cloudier and stormier, disrupting weather patterns along the US West Coast and into the Arctic.

The Australian of the Year, Tim Flannery, says that if China continues expanding its coal-fired power stations, its already severe water crisis will become "totally catastrophic".

Professor Flannery says Australia and other developed nations must help countries such as China develop clean-coal technology in order to enable a fast phase-out of conventional coal-fired power stations.

Australia, the world's biggest coal exporter, has been a big beneficiary of China's economic growth. Although Australia sells only 3 per cent of its coal to China, which has abundant coal reserves, the Chinese appetite for Australian resources has underpinned Australia's continued economic prosperity, creating record prices for iron ore, uranium and other raw materials.

Michael Richardson, an energy and security researcher at Singapore's Institute of South-East Asian Studies, says the West has a duty and a self-interest to help developing countries such as China improve their energy efficiency. Japan last month announced it would spend $US2 billion helping its poorer neighbours develop energy-saving technology. Australia has a number of agreements with China in this area, the latest, a "clean coal taskforce", announced at the second annual East Asia Summit in the Philippines in January.

In China, there are signs that its leaders are heeding what its own scientists are telling them: global warming is real, and is potentially devastating for China.

Chinese scientists and officials have been increasingly blaming global warming for worsening China's natural disasters, from longer and more devastating typhoon and flood seasons to prolonged drought in other areas. A report in January suggested a 37 per cent reduction in wheat, rice and corn output by 2050.

Mr Yang says the Chinese Government recognises it can no longer ignore the problem but it urgently needs to do much more, much faster. China must rein in its growth rate to 8-9 per cent a year, he says.

"If it continues to be 10 per cent plus there is no way to cut energy consumption", he told a briefing in Beijing last week on China's energy challenges.

The British Foreign Secretary's special representative for climate change, John Ashton, who has spent much of his diplomatic career working in and with China, says there is good reason to be concerned about China's soaring greenhouse emissions but, like Mr Yang, says attacks on China are counterproductive.

"Anyone who goes to China and tells them what their business is is not going to get very far," Mr Ashton said.

Such attacks would also be unfair. "The Chinese Government has become rapidly more aware about climate change, particularly because of the growing realisation that so much of its productive capacity is only a metre or two above sea level, such as around the Yangtze and Pearl rivers.

"The reality is China is doing a number of things that put it right on the front rank of countries that are responding to this issue," Mr Ashton said.

Full article: http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/ill...3166991682.html

Professor Flannery says Australia and other developed nations must help countries such as China develop clean-coal technology in order to enable a fast phase-out of conventional coal-fired power stations.

Here we go again. First an epidemiologist, now a biologist/museum curator. Neither has any scientific expertise in climatology. Devoted environmentalist? Ok, that is what the record indicates. Steadfast conservationist? Fine. No problem. Good writer? Appears to be from the reviews. Except where is the relevance? Nowhere in any of this are there statements that the guy is a scientific expert in global climatology? Nowhere. Just more ad-infinitum hand-waving about how human generation of CO2 is out of control and wrecking the world. HOGWASH!!!

Australia, the world's biggest coal exporter, has been a big beneficiary of China's economic growth.

I'm with Spee on this. This article is not about the environment; it's about economics. The key pinprick is the line above, and it amounts to a suckup job so that China continues its Aussie imports. The journalist needs at least three sources, so he threw in the two below to add "credence". Aus interests took over East Timor oil and biz easily, but China is not starving and grabbing at straws, and demands suckup to do business.

The west should help it improve energy efficiency? China has the resources to do it itself, but hey, if the west wants to donate the funds, why not take them? (Oh and after my country gives you this, can we do business in that?)

But true, don't tell China what to do. This sleeping dragon is gonna come out of the dungeon one day and make the current US "world domination" look like a kitten pawing a paper bag. Any protesters will be tortured, shot and buried in undisclosed locations, and there will be no enquiries.

Michael Richardson, an energy and security researcher at Singapore's Institute of South-East Asian Studies, says the West has a duty and a self-interest to help developing countries such as China improve their energy efficiency.

"Anyone who goes to China and tells them what their business is is not going to get very far," Mr Ashton said.

I catalogue this story under new age yellow journalism, ie, suck up to China.

Global Warming

Only you could find that, Boonie.

The Goreacle

This Video is explosive!

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Professor Flannery says Australia and other developed nations must help countries such as China develop clean-coal technology in order to enable a fast phase-out of conventional coal-fired power stations.

Here we go again. First an epidemiologist, now a biologist/museum curator. Neither has any scientific expertise in climatology. Devoted environmentalist? Ok, that is what the record indicates. Steadfast conservationist? Fine. No problem. Good writer? Appears to be from the reviews. Except where is the relevance? Nowhere in any of this are there statements that the guy is a scientific expert in global climatology? Nowhere. Just more ad-infinitum hand-waving about how human generation of CO2 is out of control and wrecking the world. HOGWASH!!!

Expertise in climatology, global change expert, now Booney that person would be incredibly old, survived a coupla ice ages and witnessed the demise of dinasoaurs.

get a grip

Professor Flannery says Australia and other developed nations must help countries such as China develop clean-coal technology in order to enable a fast phase-out of conventional coal-fired power stations.

Here we go again. First an epidemiologist, now a biologist/museum curator. Neither has any scientific expertise in climatology. Devoted environmentalist? Ok, that is what the record indicates. Steadfast conservationist? Fine. No problem. Good writer? Appears to be from the reviews. Except where is the relevance? Nowhere in any of this are there statements that the guy is a scientific expert in global climatology? Nowhere. Just more ad-infinitum hand-waving about how human generation of CO2 is out of control and wrecking the world. HOGWASH!!!

Expertise in climatology, global change expert, now Booney that person would be incredibly old, survived a coupla ice ages and witnessed the demise of dinasoaurs.

get a grip

That was Spee's post, Bronc...

apologies Boonie should have known better

Polar bears 'thriving as the Arctic warms up'

Pictures of a polar bear floating precariously on a tiny iceberg have become the defining image of global warming but may be misleading, according to a new study.

A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining, because of mankind's interference in the environment.

Professor Flannery says Australia and other developed nations must help countries such as China develop clean-coal technology in order to enable a fast phase-out of conventional coal-fired power stations.

Here we go again. First an epidemiologist, now a biologist/museum curator. Neither has any scientific expertise in climatology. Devoted environmentalist? Ok, that is what the record indicates. Steadfast conservationist? Fine. No problem. Good writer? Appears to be from the reviews. Except where is the relevance? Nowhere in any of this are there statements that the guy is a scientific expert in global climatology? Nowhere. Just more ad-infinitum hand-waving about how human generation of CO2 is out of control and wrecking the world. HOGWASH!!!

This thread is turning into a joke, China relies on coal fired power, it can't change that over night so why not develop cleaner burning coal technology? China's atmosphere is one of the most heavily poluted in the world, and a large proportion of the polution that is carried into the upper atmosphere ends up in the US, you should be happy that they want to reduce their emissions, we live in an age now that a nations pollution has a huge impact on their neighbours, so why shouldn't we try to manage our impact?

Spee have you seen the film yet? Jet your hardly doing yourself any favours aligning your views with an intellectual dwarf like Spee.

Khall keep up the good work and Boon.... well what can I say?....