nike hyperdunk nike shoes air jordan shoes fake air jordans air jordan

"The movie is good and largely accurate".

You know better. Are you suggesting it would be fair to give any sort of scientific prize to Al Gore should there be a climate change category? His movie is an example of unnecessary and unfounded alarmism, designed to scare people based on false asumptions. This man flies the world in his private jet tellinjg us we must stop drinking coffee, but lives in a mansion where he consumes 20 times more electricity than the average american (see this). This is gigantic hipocrisy.

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?a…

about the movie, i must disagree in that it is a flawed, one-sided view of a debate that has just started. Actually the judge has just removed it from schools for this reason.

check it yourself:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=…

This is a low point, about as low as when Yassar Arafat was awarded the Peace Prize…now we know he was a terrorist and con man who robbed tens of millions from the Palestinian People

Gore is on the same par….another huckster selling global destruction…the problem is that the destruction occurs after we follow Gore down his proscribed path

Yes, it's gotten warmer in the last 100 years. This is not unusual. In written human history, what we have now is probably more normal than the Little Ice Age that ended in the 1800's before the current warming.

When good science is present, as time goes on, the understanding increases. We instead have the IPCC approved atmospheric modeling continuing to diverge from reality. Some in one direction, others in the opposite direction. There is something going on that the computer models are not programmed for.

The IPCC models, to the extent they take clouds into effect, assume cloud cover is a result of the temperatures and humidity predicted by the greenhouse modeling. There is a competing theory that stands that relationship on it's head, that cloud cover is significantly driven by galactic cosmic rays, and the more clouds, the more of the sun's energy gets reflected into space rather than heating the planet's surface.

Science marches on.

The Cosmoclimatology paper by Svensmark:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111…

A good description of the CERN CLOUD experiment that is underway:
http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/cl…

A site by physicist Nir Shaviv, cited by Svensmark
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar http://www.sciencebits.com/ClimateDebate

I have yet to see any explanation of Figure 8 in the Cosmoclimatology paper (temperature vs. cosmic ray flux of data after Shaviv and Vezier) that explains what in the galaxy in the galaxy might explain the correlation besides cosmic rays affecting clouds.

It should be mentioned that the CERN particle beam CLOUD experiment was set to start in the late 90's but funding dropped sometime after one of the scientists mentioned they thought galactic cosmic rays could be the cause of all of the 20th century's warming. It is back online after a simpler experiment using natural cosmic rays proved cosmic rays can create the aerosols, the seeding, needed for cloud formation.

The science is far from settled and there is one thing that is for certain: No one knows for sure what the world's temperature might be if there was nobody here to complain about the heat. Politicians should stay out of it.

Reality is reality–you are correct and slight-of-hand can only changes your perception of reality, not reality itself. Unfortunately it's easy to change the representation of data so as to make any point you want, but those who torture data to make a predetermined point are not being faithful to reality, no matter what their representation seems to show.

Al Gore is guilty on both counts, but he's not happy simply violating science and reality. If he was only asking for us to be aware and kind to the environment he could perhaps be excused. However, what he proposes are actions that represent significant damage to the human situation, and more so to those who can least provide for themselves. This is neither honest, nor productive and we will see in some short years the true folly of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. I only hope that in the mean time we can avoid the damage it may cause.

Chuck

It is a complex issue, but science is science. See this documented info from today: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/11/9485…

Reality is reality. What is the worst that can happen by cleaning up the planet? What is the worst that can happen by doing nothing? Forget about Al Gore, he is not the problem.