Al Gore on Conan

sourdough

don't gimme no wrote:

Sorry but last I checked, and according to Isaac Newton, gravity was a "law" not a "theory".

You're absolutely right and I stand corrected. What I was thinking of was Einstien's theory of relativity. I guess physics is not my strong point

mca47

Puck78 wrote:

and a long history in coorporate affiliations

What politician doesn't?

In a dream world that wouldn't be the case, but in reality we have to pick and choose. It's sad but true.

Puck78

mca47 wrote:

What politician doesn't?

In a dream world that wouldn't be the case, but in reality we have to pick and choose. It's sad but true.

oh yes, but it doesn't mean that even if i might vote gore because the alternative is bush that i can't criticise gore afterward.
Anyway, this is the cause why states with less bipolarism are better... you can still vote for a party that represents you better than having to vote for someone evil (gore, clinton...) because the other is more evil (bush & friends)...

mca47

don't gimme no wrote:

That may be his way of getting votes, but when it comes down to it, it's the Skull & Bones that run the show....the same ones running it now.

So what you are saying is that all these independent groups/agencies that have come out and said this are all doing it so that he could have won the election?
Why were they saying this well before he even decided to run? Why have they always said that? Maybe it's just his little plan to "run the show" and walk in Bush's footsteps. :rolleyes:

Puck78

mca47 wrote:

So what you are saying is that all these independent groups/agencies that have come out and said this are all doing it so that he could have won the election?
Why were they saying this well before he even decided to run? Why have they always said that? Maybe it's just his little plan to "run the show" and walk in Bush's footsteps. :rolleyes:

i think that nobody disagrees about the facts (except for the 10 years stuf... talking about it: the reference?), but about the fact that it is al gore telling it.

mca47

Puck78 wrote:

i think that nobody disagrees about the facts (except for the 10 years stuf... talking about it: the reference?), but about the fact that it is al gore telling it.

Have you read anything by Dr. James Hansen. I was trying to remember him before but I was drawing a blank.

Puck78

mca47 wrote:

Have you read anything by Dr. James Hansen. I was trying to remember him before but I was drawing a blank.

I've seen his list of publications: he wrote a lot about modeling, especially on radiative forcing, and some divulgative articles. So?

mca47

"Those human changes, he says, are driven by burning fossil fuels that pump out greenhouse gases like CO2, carbon dioxide. Hansen says his research shows that man has just 10 years to reduce greenhouse gases before global warming reaches what he calls a tipping point and becomes unstoppable. He says the White House is blocking that message."
From http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml

Now, I don't have access to Columbia University or any journals here at work. I do at home though (the journals anyways).
There is one in sci. american in 2004 that i'm trying to get access to.

Puck78

mca47 wrote:

"Those human changes, he says, are driven by burning fossil fuels that pump out greenhouse gases like CO2, carbon dioxide. Hansen says his research shows that man has just 10 years to reduce greenhouse gases before global warming reaches what he calls a tipping point and becomes unstoppable. He says the White House is blocking that message."
From http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml

Now, I don't have access to Columbia University or any journals here at work. I do at home though (the journals anyways).
There is one in sci. american in 2004 that i'm trying to get access to.

come on, stop quoting cbs and scientif american and quote real scientic papers. the papers of hansen are here:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
he might ARGUE that (still, i'd like to find where...), but you have to be careful in all the assumptions that he makes... If he argues that i assure you that the agreement on that is 0%

sourdough

I won't agree or disagree with him yet. I would like to see his data or hear more scientists echo this. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't accurate.

mca47

Puck78 wrote:

come on, stop quoting cbs and scientif american and quote real scientic papers. the papers of hansen are here:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
he might ARGUE that (still, i'd like to find where...), but you have to be careful in all the assumptions that he makes... If he argues that i assure you that the agreement on that is 0%

I only provided the CBS link so that you can see that there are more people out there besides Gore who have said this. Clearly it wasn't meant to provide any data. As I said, I don't have access to much at work.

polaris

i dunno how long its gonna be but already we got another tornado warning here in my area ... we don't get tornados here in southern ontario ... if we do - they are extremely rare ... yet we've had 4 or 5 already this year ...

1970RR

polaris wrote:

i dunno how long its gonna be but already we got another tornado warning here in my area ... we don't get tornados here in southern ontario ... if we do - they are extremely rare ... yet we've had 4 or 5 already this year ...

Is this wrong then?
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/naturalhazards/majortornadoes/1

Tornado Occurences in Canada: When do they occur?
Only the United States receives more tornadoes than Canada. Prior to the 1970s, tornadoes were thought to be rare events in Canada, but various studies have since revealed that they are much more common than previously thought. Tornadoes can strike anytime during the year, but the main season is from April to October, particularly in June and July.

Where do tornadoes strike?
In Canada, more than 70 tornadoes a year strike the populated regions. Fortunately, most are too weak to cause damage. In Canada, every province is subject to the risk of tornadoes (Figure 1).

[D]
Click for larger version, 24 KB
Figure 1. Map of the Annual Number of Tornadoes in Canada

The risk of tornadoes is highest in southern Ontario. The extreme southern part of the Prairies receives the second largest number. The tornado risk is high in south central Alberta, southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba, northeastern Ontario, and western Quebec.

Overall, a third of the tornadoes occur in Ontario, and most of these are in the extreme southern part of the province. This region is also more likely to receive tornadoes of high intensity. In fact, of nine tornadoes of F4 strength recorded in Canada, seven were in southern Ontario and two were in western Canada. (However, these last two tornadoes were the worst Canada has ever known).

surferdude

1970RR wrote:

Is this wrong then?
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/naturalhazards/majortornadoes/1

Please don't bring scientific data to a politicized issue. It only confuses things, and can barely be seen or heard above the baseless rhetoric from both sides.

sourdough

How do they define SW Ontario? That could mean by the Manitoba/US border or that could mean by the more metropolitan area. It would make more sense that they would occur near the former rather than the latter because of the wind currents. If this is the case, than both of you can be correct.

polaris

1970RR wrote:

Is this wrong then?
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/naturalhazards/majortornadoes/1

Tornado Occurences in Canada: When do they occur?
Only the United States receives more tornadoes than Canada. Prior to the 1970s, tornadoes were thought to be rare events in Canada, but various studies have since revealed that they are much more common than previously thought. Tornadoes can strike anytime during the year, but the main season is from April to October, particularly in June and July.

Where do tornadoes strike?
In Canada, more than 70 tornadoes a year strike the populated regions. Fortunately, most are too weak to cause damage. In Canada, every province is subject to the risk of tornadoes (Figure 1).

[D]
Click for larger version, 24 KB
Figure 1. Map of the Annual Number of Tornadoes in Canada

The risk of tornadoes is highest in southern Ontario. The extreme southern part of the Prairies receives the second largest number. The tornado risk is high in south central Alberta, southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba, northeastern Ontario, and western Quebec.

Overall, a third of the tornadoes occur in Ontario, and most of these are in the extreme southern part of the province. This region is also more likely to receive tornadoes of high intensity. In fact, of nine tornadoes of F4 strength recorded in Canada, seven were in southern Ontario and two were in western Canada. (However, these last two tornadoes were the worst Canada has ever known).

that is definitely news to me ... i guess i have never really noticed there being that many ... i guess its because they aren't that major ... if you look at the major tornadoes list - there hasn't been any since 1996 ...

polaris

surferdude wrote:

Please don't bring scientific data to a politicized issue. It only confuses things, and can barely be seen or heard above the baseless rhetoric from both sides.

nevermind

Eliot Rosewater

surferdude wrote:

Please don't bring scientific data to a politicized issue. It only confuses things, and can barely be seen or heard above the baseless rhetoric from both sides.

that's some funny shit right there....

SundaySilence

world wrote:

What you mean is "theory." Because not too long ago, it was a "scientific fact from scientists" that the Earth was flat. It was also a "scientific fact from scientists" that leechs removed diseases. Also, in the 1970s it was a "scientific fact from scientists" that we had "Global Cooling," both Newsweek and Time ran cover storys on "Global Cooling."

The scientific method is attibuted to Aristotle. Aristotle provided observational evidence that the earth was a round. Measurements were made shortly after Aristotle, base on the seasonal variation of shadows in a well that was directly under the sun during the summer solstice to measure the approximate circumference of the earth. (approximate partially because they hadn't yet figured out how far away the sun was so they had to assume its rays were parrallel)

At the time leeches were used medicine was in the dark ages and wasn't reliant on the scientific method.

Newsweek and time are not scientific sources.

It was nonscientists such as yourself that believed the earth was flat.

SundaySilence

world wrote:

Every one of those scientists that have facts that the Earth is getting warmer also will agree that just one volcano spews more ozone destroying toxins then every car ever produced all running at the same time. One volcano does just an increadible amount of damage that makes our cars and factories look like childs play.

No

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/current-volcanic-activity-and-climate/#more-306

One point that is also worth making is that although volcanoes release some CO2 into the atmosphere, this is completely negligable compared to anthropogenic emissions (about 0.15 Gt/year of carbon, compared to about 7 Gt/year of human related sources) .