Ed,
this is more like it. your words on his words.
from your own words, he's guilty until proven innocent. now that global warming has it's politically acceptable counterpart: climate change, and therefore unanimity among scientists, we can move on to whether or not there is real impact on the daily lives of people from weather events. so al's anecdotes, as such, and correctly from your point of view aren't real evidence, you still fail to be too inquisitive about them. i've heard ( i don't know where, but since you're curious, it might be worth checking ) that we can now begin to trace actual climate events to climate change // global warming.
i'm not _that_ much older than you are, but, ... i believe, and quite strongly, there will be found data to support this claim, that:
in the 60's, tornadoes were a midwestern summer afternoon,
since the 90s' tornadoes are a southeastern spring before dawn.
as they say, i _could_ be wrong, but, consider this. an afternoon tornado, which i witnessed two in my town, one as a lifeguard "clear the pool", and another with my dad, and next two sibs, at the fairground: "everybody off the grounds" ... there was no human injury or death in those. but now, since tornadoes are in the early morning hours (with everyone asleep) the likelihood of death is greatly increased.
i would be willing, since you seem to be, to discover if these different phenomenon are more than anecdotes, whether al gore _or_ marty mcgowan stories.
but, i will not listen to you call him a joke. (unless, of course, if you are trying to goad me into getting even)
and, before we proceed, i expect you to revisit some of your "the science isn't in" arguments in the 90's and early years of this administration (adult supervision, i believe you called it) which parroted the alternative view. so now calling al gore "chicken little" must be compared to his earlier warnings (and contrary epithets), since those warnings now are "accepted science". and _please_ don't ask me to accept that global warming didn't become accepted science until the last holdout went kicking and screaming to accept.
the accepted theory is that human activity, since the industrial revolution, and particularly since the last two decades of the nineteenth century (>1880) when both the united states (post civil war) and western europe (post franco-prussian war) grew industrial power at a rate never before seen and is thus raising the greenhouse gasses and average temperatures of the planet at unsustainable rates.
i'd offer that your judgement on gore's current alarm is based more on the type of argument the church gave on galileo's theory than a willingness to examine the argument closely.
note your first paragraph damns your logic. you don't like his words. having nothing to do with the possibility he _may_ be right.
+=+-- Marty
p.s. we'll have to postpone the economic arguments, on which you are even more flawed.
--
+=+-- Citizen Marty McGowan
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y0r71L7cojE
this is more like it. your words on his words.
from your own words, he's guilty until proven innocent. now that global warming has it's politically acceptable counterpart: climate change, and therefore unanimity among scientists, we can move on to whether or not there is real impact on the daily lives of people from weather events. so al's anecdotes, as such, and correctly from your point of view aren't real evidence, you still fail to be too inquisitive about them. i've heard ( i don't know where, but since you're curious, it might be worth checking ) that we can now begin to trace actual climate events to climate change // global warming.
i'm not _that_ much older than you are, but, ... i believe, and quite strongly, there will be found data to support this claim, that:
in the 60's, tornadoes were a midwestern summer afternoon,
since the 90s' tornadoes are a southeastern spring before dawn.
as they say, i _could_ be wrong, but, consider this. an afternoon tornado, which i witnessed two in my town, one as a lifeguard "clear the pool", and another with my dad, and next two sibs, at the fairground: "everybody off the grounds" ... there was no human injury or death in those. but now, since tornadoes are in the early morning hours (with everyone asleep) the likelihood of death is greatly increased.
i would be willing, since you seem to be, to discover if these different phenomenon are more than anecdotes, whether al gore _or_ marty mcgowan stories.
but, i will not listen to you call him a joke. (unless, of course, if you are trying to goad me into getting even)
and, before we proceed, i expect you to revisit some of your "the science isn't in" arguments in the 90's and early years of this administration (adult supervision, i believe you called it) which parroted the alternative view. so now calling al gore "chicken little" must be compared to his earlier warnings (and contrary epithets), since those warnings now are "accepted science". and _please_ don't ask me to accept that global warming didn't become accepted science until the last holdout went kicking and screaming to accept.
the accepted theory is that human activity, since the industrial revolution, and particularly since the last two decades of the nineteenth century (>1880) when both the united states (post civil war) and western europe (post franco-prussian war) grew industrial power at a rate never before seen and is thus raising the greenhouse gasses and average temperatures of the planet at unsustainable rates.
i'd offer that your judgement on gore's current alarm is based more on the type of argument the church gave on galileo's theory than a willingness to examine the argument closely.
note your first paragraph damns your logic. you don't like his words. having nothing to do with the possibility he _may_ be right.
+=+-- Marty
p.s. we'll have to postpone the economic arguments, on which you are even more flawed.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Wronka, Edward <ewronka@harris.com> wrote:
I'm confused.
What break does Al Gore get? I've read HIS words, not someone else's
words about him. I've read it and come to my conclusion about him.
I'm particularly irked by this part:
---------------------
And by the way, our weather sure is getting strange, isn't it? There
seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory, longer droughts, bigger
downpours and record floods. Unprecedented fires are burning in
California and elsewhere in the American West. Higher temperatures lead
to drier vegetation that makes kindling for mega-fires of the kind that
have been raging in Canada, Greece, Russia, China, South America,
Australia and Africa. Scientists in the Department of Geophysics and
Planetary Science at Tel Aviv University tell us that for every one
degree increase in temperature, lightning strikes will go up another 10
percent. And it is lightning, after all, that is principally responsible
for igniting the conflagration in California today.
----------------------
This is a ridiculous argument...."There seem to be more tornadoes than
in living memory, longer droughts, bigger downpours and record floods".
"seems to be"!!!????!!...well is there or not? Don't we have somewhat
definitive data on this stuff? Why the "seems"? Based on the importance
he is giving to this matter, shouldn't he speak with more certainty? In
my estimate, this lack of certainty breaks everything in the speech!
A lot of people compare Al Gore to Chicken Little---but this is worse
than Chicken Little!----he doesn't even have the guts to say "the sky is
falling"...instead he "boldly" declares that "the sky sure seems to be
falling, doesn't it?"
And then he proceeds to gloss over the actions we need to take to avoid
this pending disaster----i.e. switch entirely to renewable energy supply
in 10 years!!!???!?!? WTF!?!?!?! Does he bother to mention what that
even really means!?!?! Paying the cost to infrastructure changeover!?!?!
Where in the world is he coming from!!???
--
+=+-- Citizen Marty McGowan
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y0r71L7cojE
