R.Danneskjöld Patrick, Al Gore is using power from the electric grid. Its a mixture of coal, gas, nuclear, and less than 1% wind power. He then turns around and buys these “carbon credits” (aka 'guilt stoppers', 'snake oil', 'sacrificial offering') to try to rid himself of bad karma. Those carbon credits purchased from his company are not regulated or audited and can be used to invest in other companies of which Al Gore is connected.

You are correct that “eventually” we'll need to find other sources of energy (especially for personal transportation) and I guarantee you when that time comes the free market will have something ready. We don't need the government stepping in and mandating things like Ethanol for their own political purposes. Smart Republicans that should have known better bought in to that boondoggle to get the farm and green vote. Hopefully this will never happen again!

-- Ragnar, Pirating for Freedom


Patrick G. Oski, why do you complain about how much green energy he uses? He pays a premium to his electric service provider to use electricity from renewable sources. Green energy is not about demandig we live without electricity, but we may need to pay a premium to preserve the environment. Whether its in 50 years or 300 years fossil fuels are finite - renewable energy eventually will have to be our main source of power.


Oski Definition of an energy hog = Al Gore who lives in a 10,000 sq ft mansion then buys carbon credtis from his own company to justify his lavish "corporate polluting pig" like lifestyle.

If this isn't proof that he and the other ellites at the UN and Nobel aren't the least bit worried about climate change I don't know what is.


Going back to the quest for So if we shut down all of the evil coal fired power plants who is going to give up their air conditioning, computers, tv, radio, off peak heating systems, electric cars(cant plug them in) and the list goes on and on and on.
I for one think Nuke plantz are the only way. They have been working just fine in responsable countries, just because Russia decided not to put the required containment in should make you mad not sorry for them.
Now that South Dakota is builbing a new ultra modern coal fired plant, Minnesota with all of its transplanted thinking decides that California's Enviro protection laws are good enough for here (even though they dont conform to our area)Us Minnesota folk cant buy cheap power because its fossel fuel. So is natural gas and oil.. Do you suppose this means that South Dakota wont be able to build the new OIL REFINERY that is in the works? Then North Dakota can scrap their refinery also.
Back to horse and buggy? Sorry they ommit gas too.


Denny Here's a very good Article that Parallels what the Environmentalists are saying about Global Warming. Check out the RESULT!!!! This Article says it all!




Joe C. "Why not switch to sustainable and healthier energy technologies?"

Because despite decades and billion dollars of research, there aren't any that are economically viable on a scalable level. Except for nuclear of course, but the same people clamoring for "alternative energy" refuse to allow the cleanest and cheapest source to be expanded.

Some time, decades from now, when these magical technologies exist, that's exactly what we'll use, but until then we have all the oil, coal, nat'l gas, and nuclear we need for centuries. They can be used safely, cheaply, and cleanly. Let's use them. IMO, the air and water is clean enough that we are entering decreasing marginal returns from further efforts to make them "pristine."


Patrick G. Global warming? Whether its true or not, there are other benefits to reducing the use of fossil fuels:
There is the economic and national security of generating energy domestically. You could focus on smog and other pollution besides CO2 that we can avoid. Fossil fuels are useful, but they are also a limited resource, so we should try to manage it wisely. Why not switch to sustainable and healthier energy technologies?


D. K. Wells Flanagan, yes, there was a time when the earth did not have oxygen. Do you know what freed up the current oxygen in the atmosphere? Plants and other photosynthetic organisms converted the carbon dioxide and certain other compounds, freeing up the oxygen which all animals (including humans) need to have to survive. So, giving plants carbon dioxide is a good thing as we are giving them a gas they need to survive just as they are giving us one.

Carbon dioxide is not a life ender, it is a life giver. Did you know that if the carbon dioxide level in your lungs is too low, you stop breathing? It's called Cheyne-Stokes breathing, and is common amongst high altitude climbers and people on respiratory therapy involving pure oxygen.


R.Danneskjöld Flanagan,

CO2 levels were about 6-7 times higher during the Mesozoic Era which ended about 65 million years ago. Life FLOURISHED during this period. In fact the first mammals arrived then! You have to remember that atmospheric CO2 levels are measured in parts per million, its perfectly safe for you to breath in levels that are many times what they are now. The (American) Federal Standard for carbon dioxide limits of exposure in air is 5,000 ppm (parts per million), that is 13 times higher than what it is today. CO2 is not a carcinogen, it is only dangerous because it displaces oxygen. Levels as high as 1,500 parts per million may actually benefit man by encouraging plant growth. High CO2 levels + warmer/longer growing periods = LUSH plant life and abundant food -- Ragnar, Pirating for Freedom


No confusions Flanagan,

I was simply giving you an example that there are places that are not seeing catastrophic warming. I used data from my home town. You constantly see news reports of glaciers melting on the Antarctic peninsula, but the truth is Antarctica, on a whole is cooling. Heck, since we are talking climatology (as you said) we might look at the Southern Hemisphere, which has almost no warming since 1980.


Flanagan OK, dannes, but if the earth survived those concentrations of CO2, I doubt that the beings living today would be in a very good shape. You know what ? A very long time ago, there was no oxygen on earth. And earth survived !

D not forget that the basic idea of GW is that the sligh increase in T due to CO2 should induced accelerated evaporation and higher water vapour in the atmosphere.

For the others: are you really confusing climatology and meteorology? How can you honestly conclude about the evolution of the global temperature by analyzing the weather in Chicago?


Joe C. One commenter at Climate Audit summed up the "science" behind the hoax thusly: "The key point in this is the quality of the science. The estimations done by GISS are sloppy. The peer review process is incredibly sloppy. The failure of anyone in the alarmist community to check the quality of the surface temp station siting is really sloppy. The adoption of the hockey stick without anyone making an effort to check Mann's work was beyond sloppy. The wild guess assumptions uncovered in the sea surface temp records was sloppy. The failure to archive samples and data sets is sloppy. The unwillingness of IPCC scientists to comply with its record requirements is sloppy. [The calls to stifle dissent is way beyond sloppy.] The refusal to employ the services of the best experts in statistics, forecasting and computer modelling is sloppy."


http://www.antarctic.talktal Antarctic History


And more research During the 1930's decade, at Chicago/Midway Airport recorded temps that surpassed 100F/38C on 37 occasions, including our all time highest temperature of 109F/43C. Guess the number of such days in the 200's? Give up? JUST ONE! All the while the climate models have predicted dire warming here in the Midwest and Great Lakes region.

What's even funnier, is that there was a recent article which claims dozens of 100F/38C days in an average summer by the 2080's for us in Chicago. FUNNY HOW THE HARD DATA SHOWS THE TREND GOING IN THE EXACT OPPOSITE DIRECTION!

Here is the article for a good laugh.






A little more data: I should also note that our monthly maximum temps have not changed much since 1928, give or take 1F/0.5C for a given month. So much for catastrophic MMGW!


Chicago heatLESS This last decade in Chicago has seen LESS 90F/32.2C days than every other decade on record (since 1928 at Midway International Airport). We here in Chicago have only seen 162 days of 90F/32.2C heat since 2000, and ONLY 7 so far this year. Normal number of such days is 24 in a given year.




R.Danneskjöld Flanagan - no one is suggesting that man is not responsible for some of the increase in CO2. The point about CO2 following warming is that there is no proof that the increased levels of CO2 are responsible for the .7C increase in temperatures. Can atmospheric CO2 cause warming? Maybe. But how much of an increase causes how much warming? Do these increases level off? CO2 only absorbs certain wavelengths, overlapping some other greenhouse gases. At some point it has done all the damage its going to do. The earth has seen CO2 levels 16 times higher than they are today (long before man) and it survived quite well. Who is to say that the temperature 100 years ago was the perfect temperature? -- Ragnar, Pirating for Freedom


Flanagan about temperature driving the CO2: isotope studies revealed that the excess CO2 in the atmosphere cannot come from oceans, but the isotope ratios are those found in fossil fuels.


Joe C. Martin Durkin's documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" receives official validation where "An Inconvenient Truth" was rebuked as "a health hazard."


Coincidentally, here is one quote from the article: "Take the famous Ice Core data. This was the jewel in the crown of global warming theory. Al Gore said it proved a link between carbon dioxide and temperature. He failed to mention that in the data the connection was clearly the wrong way round – temperature driving CO2 levels, not the other way round."


Joe C. Anonymous 2,
CO2 FOLLOWS warming it does not precede it. ("Compare CO2 level and temp and it's obvious.") That fact alone disproves the AGW/CC hoax. That's why Algore's timeline was on a geological timeframe so that CO2 levels APPEARED to be coincident when in actuality they laged by 400-800 years. However, if you look at solar cycles, you will see a near perfect corrolation with global temperature.


Joe C. Where are these supposed trash-filled animal habitats? They would exists if it weren't FOR the landfills. MORE development is direly needed in the second- and third- worlds, exactly what is prevented by the proposed "solutions" to AGW/CC. The quality of life his higher than ever in history on THIS Earth - I don't know about your planet. It is the hoaxsters, economic terrorists, and Luddites (like yourself) that want to return to the pre-industrial filth days and keep regions like Subsaharan Africa from enjoying the standard of living brought about by capitalism and political freedom. Don't kid yourself. THAT is the goal of the AGW/CC hoaxsters NOT "the planet."


Anonymous Nice left wing website... it's sad that people with this level of ignorance still exist... Even the videos only feature non-PhD's and hack scientists... And if there is so much pressure on politicians to go along with "Global Warming"... well... look at bush... the modern idiot. Compare CO2 level and temp and it's obvious.


Anonymous You may not think going green helps global warming, but it still can improve many other things on Earth. Animal habitats are filled with trash and landfills are taking over. Development continues to soar unecessarily. How many McDonald's do we need? Not to mention it contributes to obesity. I'm not a big "green" buff either but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the quality of ALL life on Earth is declining.


Joe C. "Going green" is marketing. It is also a mild way for corporations and those with pangs of ecoguilt to feel better. No one is against better resource management, but to assume that recycling bottles and reusing paper bags is the equivalent to appeasing the economic terrorists on the AGW/CC hoax is a stretch, especially since not using plastic bags is negligible act.

If you recall, we started using plastic bags 25 years ago because the same eco-whackos wanted to save the old growth forests and were against clearcutting. So, as usual, the circular illogic of the "environmentalists" has come full circle - a la global cooling to global warming and back again. This alone should make a reasonable mind skeptical.


opinions I found this site while doing a research paper for my class. & I think that everyone on here is very niave of facts. Whether you believe in scientists opinions or not is up to you. But other people that don't believe in this, answer me this then: Why is it that people in the U.S. and maybe (don't know but maybe) around the world are going green? Ummm that does play a part in Global warming along with gases being released like paper bags and plastic bags and pop cans, food, plants, paper, etc... almost all of that being recycled. Which does play a part in global warming. But b/c people do that with "going green," are they too naive of global warming being a hoax? I think not. I think that once mother nature shows us what more will happen, maybe skeptisism will change to facts, which is what it has been for a long time.