Weather Channel Founder Calls Global Warming "Greatest Scam in History"

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Mahoney, do you think that during the industrial age of man, since we started buring fossil fuels and sending the byproducts of that into the atmosphere, that it could possibly be a bad thing for that atmosphere? Or at least have an effect on it, moreso than in years previous to those things heading skyward? If not, why not?
 

Mahoney

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 10, 2007
261
0
0
I'm sure it has some effect, what we do, but not a great deal. Volcanoes, my friend. That's where you get the real bang for the buck if you're looking for atmosphere-changing troublemakers. We need to pass laws against volcanoes.
 

Mahoney

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 10, 2007
261
0
0
I guess the wonder full engineers from NASA are full of chit to.

You guessed right.

Some of America's top scientists have admitted that the calculations they used to show an increase in the country's temperatures were flawed, after a campaign by an amateur meteorologist using his blog.

Climatologists at Nasa's Goddard Institute of Space Science in New York have been forced to revise their estimations after research from Stephen MacIntyre, who published his findings on his Climate Audit site.

As a result of his calculations, which he e-mailed to Nasa, scientists at the agency now accept that 1934, not 1998, was the warmest year in the United States since records began.

They also accept that five of the ten warmest US years on record occurred before 1939, and that only one was in the 21st Century.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2271629.ece
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I'm sure it has some effect, what we do, but not a great deal. Volcanoes, my friend. That's where you get the real bang for the buck if you're looking for atmosphere-changing troublemakers. We need to pass laws against volcanoes.

Some effect, but not a great deal? Hmm, I wonder how that is figured. Why worry about it, I guess. Just wait until it's proven that we have killed the atmosphere, and then we can take more extreme measures.

Look, I'm not advocating hysterics, nor advocating Gore as much of anything but opportunistic. But the head in the sand mentality continually frustrates me.

As for volcanoes, I think they have been around for a very long time, and we all know they spew a lot. Apparently, they just won't listen to reason. But what hasn't been around all that long, and has had an affect that is different from before that? Not hard to tell, is it?
 

Mahoney

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 10, 2007
261
0
0
Some effect, but not a great deal? Hmm, I wonder how that is figured. Why worry about it, I guess. Just wait until it's proven that we have killed the atmosphere, and then we can take more extreme measures.

Look, I'm not advocating hysterics, nor advocating Gore as much of anything but opportunistic. But the head in the sand mentality continually frustrates me.

As before, you're arguing from premises under debate, which is a logical fallacy. My head is only in the sand if I'm ignoring valid evidence, which it is my position I'm not.

There are problems, like smog, and they can and have been dealt with. "Killing" the environment? What does that mean? One night we'll go to sleep and when we wake up, we're past the point of no return? That sounds like one of the extremist fantasies NASA's "scientist" advocated concocting to alarm people into unconsidered action. This stuff is a matter of degree, and a matter for careful study. Better safe than sorry does not apply to global warming, especially when you consider that proven safe energy deliverers like nuclear power are off the table because of laws put in place by the very same people who claim oil will kill the planet.

Produce the evidence that industrial civilization is destroying earth/wind/sea, and I'll listen.

As for volcanoes, I think they have been around for a very long time, and we all know they spew a lot. Apparently, they just won't listen to reason.

That we can't do anything about them -- and if we ever can, it will be due to industrial technology from the same quarters the alarmists deplore -- doesn't change the fact that they contribute far more to atmospheric change than man does. If I'm wrong, I'll retract that statement. But I believe I remember reading that Krakatoa's explosion in the 1800s was felt/visible for years afterward, and that it did affect the weather, if not the climate.

But what hasn't been around all that long, and has had an affect that is different from before that? Not hard to tell, is it?

What's hard to tell is what precisely that difference is. Which is what we're debating. As I have said, none of the alarmists has demonstrated a negative effect produced by industrial society requiring immediate change in normal behavior - but I have demonstrated on this thread that alamarmists not only have powerful political and financial incentive to lie but that they do exactly that.
 
Last edited:

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I have to head home to take care of the wife and son so I can watch the game later, just wanted to touch on one point of your dissected response. Do you also allow the sand-head-buriers (you use the term alarmists, so, thought I'd play along) - many of them at least - also have a vested and financial interest in not taking steps to curb emissions, increase mileage, look for alternatives to oil, etc? And if so, what steps do you think they would take to discredit the other side?
 

saint

Go Heels
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
9,501
140
63
Balls Deep
Mahoney,

I am not really sure what your position on this is, same for DTB and some others. Do you accept that global warming is an undenial reality but that it is NOT man made and is just a natural cycle. Or do you guys deny that it is even happening?

I am not sure what petro based non-sense research has led to believe that the Antarctic ice sheet is not melting. If you would like, I will bury this thread with endless studies and data that establishes beyond any doubt that the Antarctic ice sheet is disappearing.

chart_506x394.jpg

Nothing like arguing for global warming and showing a graph of a 3-4 year time span:mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07:

There's a difference between microclimate and macroclimate people, holy shit. There have been plenty of periods where temperatures rose 'drastically' and the ice caps melted over a 'short' time span in the history of this planet. You can't just look at a snapshot iof climate and claim it's a result of <insert reason> unless you provide proper evidence. Go back and look at things over millions of years and there are plenty of ups and downs.

Mahoney I'm glad you're providing rationale thought in here.
 
Last edited:

saint

Go Heels
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
9,501
140
63
Balls Deep
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/

Anatomy of A False Panic

I am trying to keep most of my long climate posts off this site and over at Climate Skeptic. However, I have cross-posted this one because it is a good example for laymen of just what crap gets put forward in the media today about global warming. It demonstrates the gullibility of the media, the gross exaggerations that exist in nearly every climate catastrophe article, and, as an added bonus, demonstrates the scientific incompetence of the man who leads the UN, the organization that has taken onto itself the role of summarizing the state of climate science.

OK, here is a great example of the media blithely accepting panicky catsrophism where none is warranted (Link HT to Maggies Farm)

Scientists welcomed Ban Ki Moon to Antarctica with a glass of Johnny Walker Black Label served ?on the rocks? with 40,000-year-old polar ice. But the researchers delivered an alarming message to the UN Secretary-General about a potential environmental catastrophe that could raise sea levels by six metres if an ice sheet covering a fifth of the continent crumbles.

The polar experts, studying the effects of global warming on the icy continent that is devoted to science, fear a repeat of the 2002 collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf. The 12,000-year-old shelf was 220 metres (720ft) thick and almost the size of Yorkshire.

?I was told by scientists that the entire Western Antarctica is now floating. That is a fifth of the continent. If it broke up, sea levels may rise as much as six metres,? Mr Ban said after being briefed at the Chilean, Uruguayan and South Korean bases during a day trip to King George Island, at the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. ...

Eduardo Frei Montalva Air Force Base, a year-round settlement of corrugated-iron cabins belonging to Chile, lies in one of the world?s worst ?hot spots? ? temperatures have been rising 0.5C (0.9F) a decade since the 1940s.

I don't even know where to start with this. So I will just fire off some bullets:

*
Over the last 30 years, satellites have found absolutely no warming trend in Antarctica (from UAH via Steven Milloy):

south_pole_temperatures.gif



* The tail is measuring the dog. The Korean station couldn't possibly be more irrelevent to measuring Antarctic temperatures. It is on an island labelled 26-34 north of the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula in the map below. One might as well declare she is measuring temperatures in the continental US from Key West.

antarcticastationsmap1s.jpg


*
It is well known that the Antarctic Penninsula, representing 2% of Antactica's area, is warming while the other 98% is cooling. I discussed this more here. Al Gore took the same disingenuous step in his movie of showing only the anomolous 2%. The Antarctic Penninsula in the first graph below shows warming. The rest of Antarctica shows none (click to enlarge)

antarc35_2.gif

antarc34.gif

antarc33_2.gif


The IPCC (run by the Secretary General and his organization) predicts that with global warming, the Antarctic penninsula will see net melting while the rest of Antarctica will see net increases in ice. The penninsula is affected more by the changing temperatures of sea currents in the surrounding seas than in global climate effects. For most of Antarctica, temperatures will never concieveably warm enough to melt the ice sheets, since it is so cold even in the summer, and ice sheets are expected to expand as warming increases precipitation on the continent.
*
In 2007, the Antarctic sea ice sheet actually hit a 30-year high.
*
Scientists studying Antarctica have been there at most a few decades. We know almost nothing about it or its histroy. We certainly don't know enough about "what is normal" to have any clue if activities on the Larson B ice shelf are anomolous or not.
*
The UN Sec-gen said that this ice shelf represented a fifth of the continent. Here, in actuality, is the Larsen ice shelf. The red box below greatly exaggerates Larsen's size, and Larsen-B is only a portion of the entire Larsen shelf.

antarctic_map_larson_b.gif


* The statement that the entire Western Antarctic is floating is just absurd. God knows what that is supposed to mean, but even if we ignore the word "floating", we can see from the map above we aren't even talking about a significant portion of the Antarctic Pennninsula, much less of Western Antarctica. Here are actual pictures of the 2002 event. (by the way, if ice is really "floating", presumably in sea water, then it's melting will have zero effect on ocean levels)
* Such a feared collapse already happened 5 years ago, and sea levels did not budge. But the next time it happens, sea levels are going to rise 20 feet?? Even the UN's IPCC does not think sea levels will rise more than 8-12 inches in the next century due to their overblown temperature forecasts.
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
Saint,

That chart was just intended to show the acceleration curve (2005 was the previous record that was broken in 2007).

Here is a chart showing actual loss compared to
HTML:
predictive models since we have been gathering satellite data.

seaice07a.jpg


Here is a global chart of general temperature increases. The fallacies pointed by Mahoney refer only to miscalculations of US temperatures (not really globally significant)

Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png


Here are some articles detailing the loss of the Antartic Ice mass over the last few decades.


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Greenland ice sheet melted at a record rate this year, the largest ever since satellite measurements began in 1979, a top climate scientist reported on Monday.

"The amount of ice lost by Greenland over the last year is the equivalent of two times all the ice in the Alps, or a layer of water more than one-half mile deep covering Washington DC," said Konrad Steffen of the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Using data from military and weather satellites to see where the ice is melting, Steffen and his colleagues were able to monitor the rapid thinning and acceleration of ice as it moved into the ocean at the edge of the big arctic island.

The extent of the melt area was 10 percent greater than the last record year, 2005, the scientists found.

Greenland is about one-fourth the size of the United States and about 80 percent of it is covered by the ice sheet. One-twentieth of the world's ice is in Greenland; if it all melted it would be equivalent to a 21-foot (6.4 meter) global sea level rise, the scientists said.

One factor in the speed-up of Greenland's ice melt is an increase in cylindrical shafts in the ice called moulins.

These huge tunnels in the ice act like drains and appear to let the ice sheet respond more rapidly than researchers expected to spikes in temperature at the beginning of the annual warm season, Steffen said.

In recent years, melting has started earlier in the year than normal. Air temperatures on the ice sheet have risen by about 7 degrees F (3.9 degrees C) since 1991, mostly because of the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the scientists said in research presented at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

This is in keeping with persistently gloomy news about the state of the Arctic this year. In October, a U.S. government "report card" found less ice, hotter air and dying wildlife.

In May, a U.S. expert at the National Snow and Ice Center in Colorado found that Arctic ice cap is melting much faster than expected and is now about 30 years ahead of predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

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

ScienceDaily (Sep. 24, 2007) ? On the world's coldest continent of Antarctica, the landscape is so vast and varied that only satellites can fully capture the extent of changes in the snow melting across its valleys, mountains, glaciers and ice shelves.



In a new NASA study, researchers using 20 years of data from space-based sensors have confirmed that Antarctic snow is melting farther inland from the coast over time, melting at higher altitudes than ever and increasingly melting on Antarctica's largest ice shelf.

With a surface size about 1.5 times the size of the United States, Antarctica contains 90 percent of Earth's fresh water, making it the largest potential source of sea level rise. It is also a place where snow melting is quite limited because even in summer, most areas typically record temperatures well below zero.

Nevertheless, NASA researchers using data collected from 1987 to 2006 found snow melting in unlikely places in 2005: as far inland as 500 miles away from the Antarctic coast and as high as 1.2 miles above sea level in the Transantarctic Mountains.

The 20-year data record was three times longer than previous studies and reaffirmed the extreme melting irregularity observed in 2005. During the same period, they also found that melting had increased on the Ross Ice Shelf, both in terms of the geographic area affected and the duration of increased melting across affected areas.

"Snow melting is very connected to surface temperature change, so it's likely warmer temperatures are at the root of what we've observed in Antarctica," said lead author Marco Tedesco, a research scientist at the Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology cooperatively managed by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., and the University of Maryland at Baltimore County, Baltimore. The study will be published on Sept. 22 in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters.

The Special Sensor Microwave Imager radiometer aboard the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program's satellites provided the researchers an update on previous studies by showing evidence of persistent snow melting -- melting that occurs for at least three days or for one consecutive day and night. As the sensors fly over Antarctica, they measure the radiation naturally emitted by snow and ice at microwave frequencies. Unlike visible sensors, Microwave instruments can also detect melting below the snow surface.

"Microwave instruments are very sensitive to wet snow and can see through clouds day and night, allowing us to separate melting from dry snow to better understand when, where and for how long melting took place," said Tedesco.

Although the researchers observed less melting in some locations on the continent during the 20-year period, melting increased in others such as the Ross Ice Shelf. Increased snowmelt on the ice shelf surface can lead to melt ponds, with meltwater filling small cracks. The liquid water puts pressure on the cracks causing larger fractures in the ice shelf.

"Persistent melting on the Ross Ice Shelf is something we should not lose sight of because of the ice shelf's role as a 'brake system' for glaciers," said Tedesco. "Ice shelves are thick ice masses covering coastal land with extended areas that float on the sea, keeping warmer marine air at a distance from glaciers and preventing a greater acceleration of melting. The Ross Ice Shelf acts like a freezer door, separating ice on the inside from warmer air on the outside. So the smaller that door becomes, the less effective it will be at protecting the ice inside from melting and escaping."

The study's results from the satellite data support related research reporting a direct link between changes in near surface air temperatures and the duration and geographic area of snow melting on Antarctica. These studies, when taken together, indicate a relationship to climate change.

"Satellites have given us a remarkable ability to monitor the melting trends of glaciers and ice shelves on this immense and largely unknown continent, and to watch for unusual occurrences like those observed in 2005," said co-author Waleed Abdalati, head of the Cryospheric Sciences Branch at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. "Through this space-based perspective, we are really only just beginning to understand the nature of the changes that are occurring in Antarctica, and what these changes will mean for Antarctica's future contributions to sea level."
 
Last edited:

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
I know Rick, I am right down the street, remember? I didn't see Al Gore's movie, I didn't read his book, and I really don't give a rat turd about him. I am not saying the sky is falling, or that we need to take catastrophic measures. I just think that it is something to be aware of and know more about.

If for no other reason, I would love to see America use its resources and ingenuity to come up with a self-contained, renewable energy source to power our nation and sell the technology to our allies. It sure beats the hell out of sending trillions and trillions of US dollars to middle east to ultimately fund countries like Iran and being the Saudi's little bitch. But that is just me. I know alot of others support a different agenda.

bush_abdullah.jpg
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
Here is a response to the Climate-Skeptic.com site that your Coyote boy hijacked his hack science from.

The climate-skeptic.com web-site is run by an amateur with no education or professional experience in climatology. The site is full of errors and distortions.

Here is a representative example:


If you watched An Inconvinient Truth, you will be saying, "this can't be right." In that movie, Al Gore and company showed compelling films of melting and warming in Antarctica. Well, it turns out that most of Antarctica is seeing more snowfall and ice formation and the same or colder temperatures, but one small area, about 2% of the landmass on the Antarctic penninsula, is seeing warming. Guess which area the movie chose to focus on?

Even if the Antarctic were warming, most climate scientists expect snow and ice pack to increase there, not decrease. Yes, warmer weather melts ice, but Antarctica is so freaking cold a few degrees are no more likely to melt ice than steel is to melt in the Arizona sunshine. But warmer weather does vaporize more water, which is expected to fall as snowpack in Antarctica. That is why despite Al Gore's claims that oceans will rise 20 feet or more, serious scientists don't expect much more than a foot, even with warming numbers far higher than I think are credible. That's because ice melting in Greenland and other glaciers is offset by increasing snow pack in Antarctica (melting sea ice has no effect on ocean levels, since the ice floats, for the same reason that ice melting in your glass of water will not cause the glass to overflow).



This is flat-out wrong. Satellite measurements show that the Antarctic is *losing* ice mass, not gaining it. Check out the following links for more details:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/inde...s-snowmelt.xml

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0302180504.htm


Climate-skeptic.com's claim that serious scientists think that sea-levels will rise not much more than a foot even if global-warming is uncontrolled is flat-out wrong.

See http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science....ap/index.html, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1135456, and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6179409.stm for details.
(Although two of the links are to mainstream media articles as opposed to journal articles, the mainstream articles do an accurate job of representing scientists' professional opinions and are worth reading.)

Scientists who are most involved in global-warming sea-level research expect on the order of a *meter* of sea-level rise this century (with lots more in future centuries) if CO2 emissions are not controlled.

For accurate information about global-warming and other scientific topics, it's best to rely on professionals, not amateurs. This advice is also directed to those who listen to Al Gore. Although Gore's track record of relaying accurate (if oversimplified) information to the public has been pretty good so far, it's always a good idea to get the final word directly from the professional scientific community.
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
As for the graphs you posted, I am much more interested in overall ice mass loss, then a random sampling of measuring stations. But thats just me. I am truly done with this. It is pointless.
 

Jaxx

Go Pokes!
Forum Member
Jan 5, 2003
7,084
88
48
FL
Just havin fun with ya man. I am not digging the $100 barrel of oil either. My home state of Okla. is lovin it. The economy is rollin there. To cold to ride my Harley in the morning though and save some change on gas.
:mad:
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,506
193
63
Bowling Green Ky
Nothing like arguing for global warming and showing a graph of a 3-4 year time span:mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :mj07:

There's a difference between microclimate and macroclimate people, holy shit. There have been plenty of periods where temperatures rose 'drastically' and the ice caps melted over a 'short' time span in the history of this planet. You can't just look at a snapshot iof climate and claim it's a result of <insert reason> unless you provide proper evidence. Go back and look at things over millions of years and there are plenty of ups and downs.

Mahoney I'm glad you're providing rationale thought in here.

I wonder which blog he bit on to use 5 year graph as proof--if he expanded it out he'd see they been receding since the Ice Age--and if his temp chart is accurate we've had 2/5 of one degree change in past 50 years--Gadzooks:scared
--should I jump today--or buy some property in Wisconsin knowing it will be tropical resort in about 1,800 years:mj07:

Considering 1/5 of earth is a frozen and barren wilderness--don't believe I'll jump just yet :)

Wonder what these folks would give for a little global warming next couple of days--anticipating record cold next few days

Freeze Threatens Citrus, Other Florida Crops
Thursday, January 03, 2008

ORLANDO, Fla. ? A wintry system that added inches to record snow accumulations in some Northern states sent temperatures plummeting Wednesday in the South, where farmers scrambled to protect their crops.

Temperatures were expected to drop into the 20s and teens in parts of Florida by Thursday morning, following the 30-degree temperatures some northern parts of the state saw Wednesday.
 
Last edited:

Mahoney

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 10, 2007
261
0
0
I have to head home to take care of the wife and son so I can watch the game later, just wanted to touch on one point of your dissected response. Do you also allow the sand-head-buriers (you use the term alarmists, so, thought I'd play along) - many of them at least - also have a vested and financial interest in not taking steps to curb emissions, increase mileage, look for alternatives to oil, etc?

No, I don't agree. First, a general point, we should deal in specifics, not abstractions. That's the problem with the GW pushers. They want to rush the public past the main point, without careful, rational discussion. That's why they're big on "everybody knows the climate is warming up" and calling everyone who demurs a "denier" or some other epithet.

Slow down, pilgrims. GW alarmists have failed to establish your central point: that the globe is actually getting warmer. All you have, far as I can tell, is the claim that the earth has gotten a fraction of a degree hotter in the last 150 years. I'm seriously underwhelmed by that claim, especially when it comes from, as Saint and I and others have demonstrated above, biased sources taking readings from, uh, shall we say, carefully positioned sensors.

"Global Warming" is nothing but the same old failed socialist policies, hoping you'll accept them tricked out as "science."

And if so, what steps do you think they would take to discredit the other side?

For all I know, oil companies may be the main behind-the-scenes promoters of global warming. Remember, Al Gore's fortune comes from big oil and Armand Hammer.

Chadman, do you realize that the US has all kinds of oil that can't be drilled because of political regulations? Do you realize that it's essentially impossible, due to law, to build new refineries in the US? Do you realize that nuclear energy is the safest and cleanest energy we have, but again, because of the dirt-loving green crowd, more nuclear plants can't be built? Why do you question the motives of people who provide oil you need to run your everyday life, but never question the motives of those who do nothing but pass laws that restrict your ability to live the way you want?

The basic problem here is the GW alarmists are religious fundamentalists who can't stand their bluff being called: there is no conclusive evidence that the earth is warming, just a bunch of snapshots intended to create a misleading picture to get people to buy the same old backwards, failed commie agenda.

But be my guest. Believe oil-rich Al. He'll take all the taxes and regulatory power you give him, and in return you'll get that warm green feeling. Me, I'd rather keep my money and freedom and tell Mr. 10,000-Square-Foot House to go fk himself.
 
Last edited:

Mahoney

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 10, 2007
261
0
0
Traditionally a Republican firm, Occidental was linked to the Democrats for many years primarily through Gore's father, Senator Al Gore Sr. The elder Gore was such a loyal political ally that Occidental's founder and longtime CEO, Armand Hammer, liked to say that he had Gore "in my back pocket." When Gore Sr. left the Senate in 1970, Hammer gave him a $500,000-a-year job at an Occidental subsidiary and a seat on the company's board of directors. At the time of his death in 1998, Gore the elder's estate included hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of Occidental stock. The Vice President is the executor of the estate, which still includes the stock and whose chief beneficiary is his mother.

But Occidental's funneling of money to the Gore family doesn't end there. In the sixties, the Gores discovered zinc ore near land they owned in Tennessee. Through a company subsidiary Hammer bought the land for $160,000--twice the amount offered by the only other bidder. He swiftly sold the land back to Al Gore Sr. and agreed to pay him $20,000 a year for mining rights. After receiving his first payment, Gore Sr. sold the land for $140,000 to Gore Jr., who has received a $20,000 check nearly every year since he acquired it. Strangest of all, Occidental has never actually mined the land. Al Jr.'s coffers swelled further in 1985 when he began leasing the land to Union Zinc, an Occidental competitor. (For a full account of the Gore-Occidental relationship, see The Buying of the President 2000 by Charles Lewis and the Center for Public Integrity.)

According to Neil Lyndon, who worked on Hammer's personal staff and ghosted his memoirs, Witness to History, the Occidental chieftain was as cozy with Gore Jr. as he was with Gore Sr. When he came to Washington, Hammer regularly met Gore for lunch or dinner. "They would often eat together in the company of Occidental's Washington lobbyists and fixers who, on Hammer's behest, hosed tens of millions of dollars in bribes and favours into the political world," Lyndon writes. Gore also hosted Hammer for Ronald Reagan's second inaugural and won him a prominent spot when George Bush was sworn in as President in 1989.

Hammer's death the following year did not end the back-scratching between Occidental and Gore. In 1992 Occidental loaned the Presidential Inauguration Committee $100,000 to help pay for the ceremony. Four years later, the company gave $50,000 in soft money to the Democrats in response to a phone solicitation from Gore. All told, Occidental has donated nearly half a million dollars in soft money to Democratic committees and causes since Gore joined the ticket in 1992. For his current presidential run, Gore has raised $92,000 from the oil and gas industry. Occidental is his number-two donor in that category, with company executives and their wives donating $10,000 to fuel Gore's campaign.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000522/silverstein

It's not as simple as oil-bad, green-good. In fact, just as with liberal-conservative and Republican-Democrat, green/oil is just another way to fool and manipulate the American public. The real rulers are on both sides of everything. Whether it's "save the earth" or "tap the earth," all roads lead straight to Al Gore's back pocket.
 

Toledo Prophet

Registered User
Forum Member
Oct 5, 2005
2,384
2
0
53
Toledo, Ohio
Not my words, but something I felt worth passing on. Its not something that speaks to the global warming issue, per se, but does indeed stress the value of working towards a better environment and planet. My take, there is legit evidence out there on man made climate change. We can address it and make the world better. Maybe all the evidence is wrong as you naysayers claim, but even if it is, steps to curb greenhouse emmissions, steps to find alternative farming and energy solutions, steps to find disease cures, steps to address the likely population shifts as a result are still ones better taken than not. We can do nothing and hope we're wrong about it. Or, we can do something and wrong or not create a better world for the future generation.

Anyway, enjoy.....I am sure the resident wing nuts here will tear this to shreds since it did not come from fox news or a Moonie paper like the Washington Times or from Malkin's blog....so enjoy that too....:0corn

Solving climate change can mean new markets and new investments in workers and small businesses. These ?green collar jobs? involve environmentally friendly products or services such as construction of green schools, solar panel manufacturing, energy efficiency retrofits of homes, brownfield clean-up, and waterfront restoration.

Green collar jobs are concentrated in areas such as construction and manufacturing that provide family-supporting wages, skill development, and career ladders. And they are often localized, which makes them harder to move off shore and provides a greater economic ripple effect in local communities.

As the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee meets today to discuss domestic energy industry workforce needs, it should consider the following numbers:

5.3 million: A recent study conducted by Management Information Services, Inc., found that in 2005 the environmental industry nationwide generated more than 5.3 million jobs, $341 billion in sales, and $47 billion in tax revenues.

10: The environmental industry employs 10 times more workers than the pharmaceutical industry. It is bigger than the biggest fortune 500 company.

6.3 million: MISI forecasts that U.S. employment created directly and indirectly by environmental protection will reach 6.3 million jobs and $448 billion in real expenditures by 2015.

100 percent: Renewable energy creates twice as many jobs per unit of energy than traditional fossil fuel-based generating technologies.

$700 billion: The University of Tennessee found that America?s farms, forests, and ranches can play a significant role in reaching a national goal of 25 percent renewable energy generation by 2025. Renewable energy crops can provide more than $700 billion in economic activity and 5.1 million jobs in 2025, with most of this growth occurring in rural areas.

$14 billion: According to estimates by the Clean Tech Venture Network, U.S. ?green technology? investment will reach at least $14 billion by 2010, and possibly as much as $19 billion. This will result in the creation of between 400,000 and 500,000 new jobs.

$2.4 billion: Venture capital has begun to pour into clean energy. In 2006, venture investments in clean energy technologies tripled, bringing that figure to $2.4 billion.

39 percent: Globally, the annual revenue for solar power, wind power, biofuels, and fuel cell companies rose to $55.4 billion in 2006 from $40 billion in 2005?a nearly 39 percent increase in one year. Market research firm Clean Edge forecasts that these four technologies alone will become a $226 billion market by 2016.

Reorienting our antiquated energy infrastructure around the platforms of sustainability, efficiency, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions represents a great economic engine for innovation, productivity growth, and international competitiveness in coming decades.

These jobs create local economies and are strong enough to lift people out of poverty, all while rolling back pollution and creating healthier cities and more equitable livelihoods for all Americans
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top