PROPHAT247

Transire suum pectus mundoque potiri

Articles Posted: 50 Links Seeded: 1494

Member Since: 8/2009 Last Seen: 5/18/2012

Al Gore Says Massive Amounts of Snow Caused By Warming, But Other Democrats Say Lack Of Snow Caused By Warming

Wed Feb 2, 2011 4:33 PM EST

world-news, weather, global-warming, al-gore, man-made-global-warming, snow-storms, global-warming-snow

By Prophat247

Live Poll

Does Global Warming Cause

Advertise | AdChoices

I ran across this post from Al Gore, or a staffer of his:

Last week on his show Bill O’Reilly asked, “Why has southern New York turned into the tundra?” and then said he had a call into me. I appreciate the question.

As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming:

“In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow.”

“A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms, flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species.”

As I thought back to previous years, I remembered Democrats blaming the LACK of snow on global warming.

So.....Which is it?

Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

Prophat247's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: Earth Signs
Regions: none

Public Discussion (115)

Prophat247

So.....Which is it?

Mind the CoH please.

4 votes

#1 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 4:35 PM EST

northern girl

Its which ever one suits his purpose at the time. Heaven forbid he admit that the earth is constantly changing!

22 votes

#1.1 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 4:52 PM EST

theralinc

The algore is a disgusting piece of human offal; why do we keep dignifying his verbal garbage? If there is good and evil, he is the poster boy for evil.

11 votes

#1.2 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 4:59 PM EST

Concerned Citizen-1303521

It's more, mostly (elaborated below).

It's not too complicated, so let me know if I lose you anywhere.

Water evaporates continuously from surface of oceans, seas, rivers, lakes and vegetations on land into the atmosphere due to heat of the Sun. The more the planet warms, the more H2O evaporates. As water rises from the surface of the earth, it forms clouds. When clouds are cooled sufficiently is how we get precipitation.

Now, if the temperature is low enough (like say, in winter) instead of rain, the precipitation will take the form of snow.

Now, there are many out there that think warmer planet = less snow... and that's partially correct in that it is correct if you go to an extreme temperature. While I'm not a biologist, I would think that at the temperature where we eliminate snow from the face of the earth, we'll have other issues to deal with (like survival).

9 votes

#1.3 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 5:05 PM EST

Uthaclena

The actual answer to your either/or poll is "Yes."

This "controversy" filled with personality-based attacks is just another clear indication of the lack of understanding of science in the United States. "Global warming" does not mean that everything gets warmer; it means that as average world temperatures get warmer - and all records indicate an on-going increase in average world temperatures - the weather becomes more unstable..

With global warming, some areas will become generally warmer; some will become generally colder; some will become generally wetter; some will become generally drier. Some may experience minimal changes. But overall, the climate - the long-term patterns of weather - are changing.

But those who prefer simplistic answers will keep their fingers in their ears and generate insults as if they actual prove something.

10 votes

#1.4 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 5:40 PM EST

xrayspex

It's hard to tell where the truth ends and the BS begins with Ozone Al and his minions !! While I believe in protecting the environment and strongly support limits on deforestation, I don't buy the notion that we have to cripple the world's economy and ban automobiles to do so !!

9 votes

#1.5 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 6:41 PM EST

Oliver Closoff

Here's the deal. Climate is going to change. Adapt to it or die. If you want to go around bickering about who's to blame or continually rant about strategies that are virtually impossible to implement then I don't have any time for you.

On the other hand if you want to join an alliance of pragmatists that speak to what actually might be considered as a path of adaptation then let's talk.

4 votes

#1.6 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 7:38 PM EST

paxildog

Gotta hand it to those global warming alarmists, anything that happens in any direction means they are right.

If there is another ice age worse than any other before because the sun burned out, it would still be due to global warming and be human caused.

It's gotten to the point where no person can believe anything any of them say because for the past twenty years it's always been said "in a hundred years from now" and since they give no starting point they are always correct.

When the caps melt we will have 20 feet of water rise or something like that and to this day, there is insignificant rise. In anything including sea levels.

Gore is just missing his foretold billions of dollars from tax credits.

8 votes

#1.7 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 7:44 PM EST

Walt42

theralinc...it would be nice if you actually had something useful to say !!

The algore is a disgusting piece of human offal; why do we keep dignifying his verbal garbage? If there is good and evil, he is the poster boy for evil

Is character assassination. Not something that helps the discussion.

6 votes

#1.8 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 7:54 PM EST

Stu-4803409

Comment collapsed by the community

DEATHNELL J.

I agree with northern girl's post #1.1 "completely"!

4 votes

#1.10 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 10:25 PM EST

1+2=potatoe

It's more, mostly (elaborated below).

It's not too complicated, so let me know if I lose you anywhere.

Water evaporates continuously from surface of oceans, seas, rivers, lakes and vegetations on land into the atmosphere due to heat of the Sun. The more the planet warms, the more H2O evaporates. As water rises from the surface of the earth, it forms clouds. When clouds are cooled sufficiently is how we get precipitation.

Now, if the temperature is low enough (like say, in winter) instead of rain, the precipitation will take the form of snow.

Now, there are many out there that think warmer planet = less snow... and that's partially correct in that it is correct if you go to an extreme temperature. While I'm not a biologist, I would think that at the temperature where we eliminate snow from the face of the earth, we'll have other issues to deal with (like survival).

Which is it? Seems I am not the only one confused. Perhaps you need to head to DC and see if anyone can follow along with your convenient logic!

http://www.leehernly.com/?p=681

4 votes

#1.11 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 11:28 PM EST

paxildog

Troll somewhere else stu, reported as inflammatory.

6 votes

#1.12 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:16 AM EST

vol fan in chatt, tn

Here's what I know...when AL Gore bloviates and opens his mouth the darn hot lying air coming from it warms the earth. When he shuts his yap, it gets colder...there we can all balme it on

AL E GORE. Problem solved.

BTW, when he quits heating his mega mansion, driving his big SUV's and flying around on his private jet making money off this scheme, then he can open his yap and tell us how to live. Until then, he is just one more opportunistic, egotistical, bureaucratic hypocrite - making money of the backs of other people.

5 votes

#1.13 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:08 AM EST

Uthaclena

xrayspex

It's hard to tell where the truth ends and the BS begins with Ozone Al and his minions !! While I believe in protecting the environment and strongly support limits on deforestation, I don't buy the notion that we have to cripple the world's economy and ban automobiles to do so !!

Let me see if I understand; you so dislike the messenger, and are so wedded to all of the convenient toys of our current civilization, and are so unwilling to participate in any social changes, that you will ignore the vast body of science regarding the planetary climate? That's somewhat beyond sad.

If the observations and conclusions regarding climate change turn out to be wrong but we make the recommended changes, we will wind up with a different economy with different technologies and a cleaner environment; if the deniers are wrong, we may wind up extinct.

But, screw posterity; what have they ever done for us anyway?

3 votes

#1.14 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:26 AM EST

Mongowildman

The answer to either poll is Yes or No. It doesn't matter because GW is not real inthe sense that it is a problem. GW is a natural process that has happened over and over through the history of the planet. This just happens to be the one that coincides with the human population growth. People didn't cause it in the past but it still happened. All we are doing is MAYBE giving it a little tiny push but it will still happen without us, so we better get used to that idea and start making the changes to deal with it.

Rather than take the initiative and start adapting to the change, people are under the impression that we can stop it. Nope... Ain't gonna happen.

This weird weather is not all that unusual. It just seems that way because we have been spoiled with ideal weather for more time than we really should have. It happens to be an "El Nino" year and that is something we have no control over.

3 votes

#1.15 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 11:39 AM EST

xrayspex

The automobile is not a toy, no single invention has done more to provide freedom to mankind. Sorry, but unless you rode a skateboard to work or walked, you likely rode or drove in some form of the automobile today. I support the expanded use of biofuels, expanding the use of parallel hybrids and working on the feasibility of electric vehicles, but the AGW crowd wants to ban any form of personal transportation and move everyone to hire rise boxes, that's a WRONG ANSWER !!!

2 votes

#1.16 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 11:49 AM EST

Uthaclena

xrayspex

the AGW crowd wants to ban any form of personal transportation and move everyone to hire rise boxes

Those are suggested strategies, yes, but not the only strategies being suggested. The love affair with cars is much like the love affair with guns; the emotional attachment is more important than dealing with the realities that they impact. And again, many of the choices are not either/or.

1 vote

#1.17 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:09 PM EST

Mongowildman

It's more of a control issue. The proponents are all in positions of power and they want to keep that power and increase it as much as they an. That is power over the public and what the individuals can and cannot do with their own property. By placing guilt on the public is intended to intimidate them into compliance with ridiculous policies that only make life more difficult for them, while making life better for those in control.

2 votes

#1.18 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:58 PM EST

Concerned Citizen-1303521

Which is it? Seems I am not the only one confused. Perhaps you need to head to DC and see if anyone can follow along with your convenient logic!

Well, as I said, it's more (sort of)... but that's on average over the world.

Local weather patterns are a whole different story as there are other factors (like changing wind patterns) that can have a larger impact on precipitation in that area.

#1.19 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 4:44 PM EST

1+2=potatoe

....................but that's on average over the world.

Ok fine. You want to use the average over the whole world, I will concede to those terms. Can you explain why the ACE for the ENTIRE WORLD end of year 2010 was one of the lowest since record keeping began?

The narrative de jour among climate change enthusiasts seem to reference any extreme weather patterns as evidence to strengthen the position of "settled science" on the issue.

In reality it is a bunch of nonsense, an argument that any 5th grade can punch holes through.

How does record low ACE values for 2010 factor into evidence of global warming ? Wait I guess the phrase is now the all encompassing "climate change".

Either way I would like to hear your position on this!

2 votes

#1.20 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 11:54 PM EST

Stu-4803409

Troll somewhere else stu, reported as inflammatory.

Hit a bit too close to the mark there? Seriously, you guys couldn't reason your way out of a wet paper sack. There are very easy to research and understand mechanisms at work, a lot of it is pretty basic chemistry that you could learn by 5th grade if you had paid attention in school. Regardless of your concerted effort to somehow believe 7 billion people plus 200 years of wanton disregard have had no effect on the climate, the facts and research overwhelmingly prove otherwise. I apologize if the tone wasn't to your liking, but most of us are way past bored of hearing the same nonsense over and over from you right wing deniers who don't bother to do any research or learning on your own.

4 votes

#1.21 - Sat Feb 5, 2011 2:38 PM EST

paxildog

When you get your head out of the clouds, give us a call. Reported as CoH violation again.

3 votes

#1.22 - Sat Feb 5, 2011 2:45 PM EST

Stu-4803409

Comment collapsed by the community

SayWhat-1315936

Stu, I recognize that rapier wit, that stellar writing style. You write for Beck don't you?

Can I have your autograph?

Seriously, I was pretty much with you until that little bit. Paxildog is trying to bait you. You fell for it.

You have solid points, you have the science and the intellectual community to back you up but turning sandbox, rock throwing, tantrum tossing, well it just loses credibility. Emotional jousts will fail every time. Just a thought.

2 votes

#1.24 - Sat Feb 5, 2011 5:50 PM EST

Stu-4803409

Eh science and facts will prevail, might take another generation or two until the anti science fundies die off but only a moron thinks that 200 years of burning everything we can drag into the fire and increasing our population by 700% in 120 years has no effect. Some people get their feeling hurt by thinking we might be causing some damage, oh well deal with it.

3 votes

#1.25 - Sat Feb 5, 2011 5:54 PM EST

SayWhat-1315936

It's more the Boo Hoo, moron stuff that I'm talking about. When you talk like that, you know, down to people, it tends to make your real message get lost. So that tells me that either you don't care about getting your message across or that your real message is you think you are better than the people you are talking to. Either way you are leaving it up to "another generation" to get the message about awareness out there. If so why do you bother?

Really, try to leave the name calling and superior attitude at the door. Some of us already believe you but we are embarrassed by the way you embarrass yourself. "They", the deniers, use you as an example of why they shouldn't believe any of the rest of us.

1 vote

#1.26 - Sat Feb 5, 2011 6:06 PM EST

bluearcher

It is only one or the other if you are a moron, if you have a 3rd graders grasp of science you can see how it would affect both.

Could not have said it better.

Nothing quite like the mental masturbation of under educated individuals sniping about a subject they know little to nothing about.

John Q Public opinion vs. the stated facts of scientists? Easy answer: if you don't have a degree and know the facts then please stfu.

2 votes

#1.27 - Sun Feb 6, 2011 8:53 AM EST

MJV in Wisconsin

Easy answer: if you don't have a degree and know the facts then please stfu.

That goes for both sides so unless you can prove your degree, I would ask you to heed your own words.

2 votes

#1.28 - Sun Feb 6, 2011 4:11 PM EST

Mongowildman

Some of the smartest and best informed people I know, do not have degrees. That seems to be a little on the elitist side if a degree is required for credibility.

2 votes

#1.29 - Sun Feb 6, 2011 5:02 PM EST

Sally

how about going back to elementary and getting passing grades this time, then get back to us.

Stu-4803409, you are suspended for a day for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.

Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from making personal attacks.

2 votes

#1.30 - Mon Feb 7, 2011 2:06 PM EST

bluearcher

That goes for both sides so unless you can prove your degree, I would ask you to heed your own words.

My words have nothing to do with global warming. I leave that to the scientists...those who know the facts not just cast opinions.

Some of the smartest and best informed people I know, do not have degrees. That seems to be a little on the elitist side if a degree is required for credibility.

Elitist side? Seriously? Nice way to minimize education and advanced knowledge regarding specific fields of study and education.

Hey Mongo, I just read a book on liver disease...would you let me operate on your liver?

1 vote

#1.31 - Tue Feb 8, 2011 8:34 AM EST

Mongowildman

I also know people WTIH degrees, that couldn't find their butts with both hands and an assistant.

3 votes

#1.32 - Tue Feb 8, 2011 9:41 AM EST

Drizzey

Chicken Little comes to mind.

13 votes

#2 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 4:48 PM EST

SpoxLogic

As usual, the no-global-warming-is-happening folks still miss the bigger point. This isn't about Al Gore. This isn't even about whether or not man is adding to global warming.

The real issue is something is happening with our world and the ramifications of those events are HUGE!

4 votes

#2.1 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 9:32 PM EST

paxildog

In case you didn't understand, it's not global warming, it's normal weather events, same as the last few billion years.

9 votes

#2.2 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:10 AM EST

worldcurmudgeon

Now that the ozone has been depleted by 19th century and early 20th century industry, we have no atmosphere holding in heat, its radiating right out into space. So, the result is this intense cold, for a while, which means the summer will be even hotter. I guess we are lucky we found a new planet to immigrate to in a solar system far far away. It will only take us 50 million years to get there. All on board!

2 votes

#2.3 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 9:54 PM EST

boomer 54

Try picking up some reading material about global warming. It's both. So many variables such as jet stream, El Nino, more moisture due to melting ice caps. Read the other side, even if you don't agree, you might learn something.

6 votes

#3 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 4:58 PM EST

theralinc

Boomer, good point. I highly recommend "Climategate" by Brian Sussman. It really opened my former AGW eyes. It also exposes that squamus, algore, for what he is, a pus sack on the face of humanity.

10 votes

#4 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 5:03 PM EST

tom sevigny

According to the AGW experts, it doesn't matter.

Stephen Schneider, lead 2007 UN IPCC report author:

"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest".

And why do they believe this?

Christine Stewart, Canada's former environmental minister knows:

" Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world. No matter if the science is all phony, there are still collateral environmental benefits to global warming policies".

Heaven forbid these morons apply the Socratic Principle and risk losing their grants and funding. We wouldn't want them to be "blinded by science".

14 votes

#5 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 5:04 PM EST

clarke ong

blah, blah, blah.

Yes, every national academy of science on the entire planet is on the take to the environazis.

blah, blah, blah.

5 votes

#5.1 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 5:15 PM EST

Prophat247

clarke ong - Your other comment was deleted because it was a personal attack.

8 votes

#5.2 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 5:17 PM EST

tom sevigny

clarke, why is it that two of the Sociology Majors I know right now working on their Ph.D's cannot get grants unless the outcome or conclusions are predictive and support a particular agenda?

Do you think those policies are truncated after graduation?

11 votes

#5.3 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 5:21 PM EST

tom sevigny

The APA back in the 1970s, when they were taken over by the GLF, also instituted a policy that no funding would be given for physiological and behavioral studies related to homosexuality unless the outcome was predictive. Many sciences have degenerated to political and ideological apparatus.

clarke, do you know what the Socratic Principle is and what it's role has been in Scientific inquiry, historically?

7 votes

#5.4 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 5:45 PM EST

clarke ong

fair enough prophat

tom

This is climatolgy not sociology, and the FACT stands that EVERY national academies of science on the planet says Man is affecting his climate. Deforestation ALONE has proven this, in altered rainfall patterns and amounts. Your assertion is that they are ALL on the take, whether the host country is Muslim, Democratic, Communist or whatever?

This is implying a worldwide conspiracy with all nations with an academy of science complicit.

3 votes

#5.5 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 5:50 PM EST

tom sevigny

It is only a conspiracy when it is not mainstream. Why else do you think guys like Al Gore have become the nouveau indoctrinaires, carpet-baggers and envirovangelists? Bedamned the facts. Forget about debate. These folks do not want public debate.

Climatology is so close to being a "soft-science" today in many ways because of the socio-enviromental-political elements that the proponents of global warming continue to harp on.

10 votes

#5.6 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 5:54 PM EST

clarke ong

These folks like every national academy of science on the earth?

You're saying they're all making it up tom.

To what end?

3 votes

#5.7 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 5:57 PM EST

clarke ong

Tom

Does deforestation change the climate?

2 votes

#5.8 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 6:01 PM EST

clarke ong

Are you denying the climate is drastically changing at an accelerated rate Tom?

3 votes

#5.9 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 6:07 PM EST

Steve-2081387

clarke

Where did you get your information, I know you didnt check every one of them personally.

Just think of how much money Al Gore has made off this and youll see why he backs it.

8 votes

#5.10 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 6:17 PM EST

clarke ong

People are going to take advantage of realities to make money steve.

That doesn't change the realities one bit does it?

I'm sorry the issue is political, but that doesn't mean it's not an issue. And everything around you is saying "this is an issue"

4 votes

#5.11 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 6:21 PM EST

Braveheart50

SENATE EPW MINORITY RELEASES

REPORT ON CRU CONTROVERSY

Shows Scientists Violated Ethics, Reveals Major Disagreements on Climate Science.

Link to a Sampling of CRU Emails

Link: IPCC Gets the Science Wrong

Link: Endangerment Finding Based on Flawed Science

Washington, D.C.-The Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a report today titled, "‘Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy." The report covers the controversy surrounding emails and documents released from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). It examines the extent to which those emails and documents affect the scientific work of the UN's IPCC, and how revelations of the IPCC's flawed science impacts the EPA's endangerment finding for greenhouse gases.

The report finds that some of the scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and possibly federal laws. In addition, the Minority Staff believes the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC-based "consensus" and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.

In its examination of the controversy, the Minority Staff found that the scientists:

- Obstructed release of damaging data and information;

- Manipulated data to reach preconceived conclusions;

- Colluded to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science "consensus"; and

- Assumed activist roles to influence the political process.

"This EPW Minority Report shows that the CRU controversy is about far more than just scientists who lack interpersonal skills, or a little email squabble," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. "It's about unethical and potentially illegal behavior by some the world's leading climate scientists.

"The report also shows the world's leading climate scientists acting like political scientists, with an agenda disconnected from the principles of good science. And it shows that there is no consensus-except that there are significant gaps in what scientists know about the climate system. It's time for the Obama Administration to recognize this. Its endangerment finding for greenhouse gases rests on bad science. It should throw out that finding and abandon greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act-a policy that will mean fewer jobs, higher taxes and economic decline."

9 votes

#5.12 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 6:22 PM EST

tom sevigny

Clarke, you asked 4 questions above about elements that are separate, not inclusive issues. You are setting up a non sequitur argument and poorly i might add. Your zeal is indicative of how people buy into this insidious hype and the AGW agenda's nexus to a new humanistic discipline, a religion if you will that has been pushing for global socialism.

The facts are irrelevant to AGW people. Why don't you cross examine them and on the way read Braveheart50's post below #7.

7 votes

#5.13 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 6:23 PM EST

clarke ong

So the Republicans don't support the consensus.

Every point they brough up has been thoroughly debunked, there is nothing new in their report at all.

And what expertise would empower a republican senate minority to even understand the science to comment on it?

Imagine the leading sceptic, Inhofe from oil dependent Oklahoma coming out against the science! Amazing huh? He's been leading the sceptic charge from the get go.

Tom

Whats the matter? Don't want to answer?

Tom, does deforestation cause climate change? Is climate changing at an accelerated rate Tom?

Yes or no please.

3 votes

#5.14 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 6:28 PM EST

Steve-2081387

I just want to know where you got your info so I can check it out for myself.

4 votes

#5.15 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 7:59 PM EST

tom sevigny

btw, for those who are not familiar with Stephen Shneider's history as an eviro-nazi, he was the guy who was writing all of the papers and alarming the public about the threat of global freezing in the 1970s. How does he even have a job?

13 votes

#6 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 5:06 PM EST

Braveheart50

envirovangelists

I like that.....

8 votes

#6.1 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 6:07 PM EST

clarke ongDeleted

Braveheart50

Influence on current Green and socialist movements

Currently, many Green Parties around the world, such as the Dutch Green Left Party (GroenLinks), contain strong eco-socialist elements. Radical Red-green alliances have been formed in many countries by eco-socialists, radical Greens and other radical left groups. In Denmark, the Red-Green Alliance was formed as a coalition of numerous radical parties. Within the European Parliament, a number of far-left parties from Northern Europe have organized themselves into the Nordic Green Left Alliance. Red Greens feature heavily in the Green Party of Saskatchewan (in Canada but not necessarily affiliated to the Green Party of Canada) and GPUS.

The Green Party of England and Wales features an eco-socialist group, Green Left, that was founded in June 2005 and whose members hold a number of influential positions within the party, including both the former Principal Speakers Siân Berry and Dr. Derek Wall, himself an eco-socialist and marxist academic, as well as prominent Green Party candidate and human rights activist Peter Tatchell.^[20] Many Marxist organisations also contain eco-socialists, as evidenced by Löwy's involvement in the reunified Fourth International and Socialist Resistance, a British Marxist newspaper that reports on eco-socialist issues and has published two collections of essays on eco-socialist thought: Ecosocialism or Barbarism?, edited by Jane Kelly and Sheila Malone, and The Global Fight for Climate Justice, edited by Ian Angus with a foreword by Derek Wall.^[33]^[34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-socialism

9 votes

#8 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 5:28 PM EST

Peter-2556560

Does it really matter weather warm makes more snow or snow makes the plant more warmer, in reality it does. Some would even consider this harsh reality a hoax or whatever, i say just open eyes and look at how the weather changes dramatically.

Some idiots think that global warming is just the planet warming up and didnt take into consideration this planet have seasons.

You tell me, If there is only one freaken season on this planet then you can come at me and claim it is a hoax then i will believe you.

2 votes

#9 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 5:59 PM EST

Realist-846893

what none of these peabrains wants to admit is that "climate change" is an ongoing phenomenon that has little if anything to do with human activities

6 votes

#10 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 6:17 PM EST

clarke ong

How about deforestation?

Does it have an effect on climate and does it have to do with human activity?

2 votes

#10.1 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 6:22 PM EST

Realist-846893

little - and probably for the better

3 votes

#10.2 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 6:32 PM EST

clarke ong

And you call yourself realist?

Can deforestation lead to desertification? What is evapotranspiration and how does it affect rainfall?

4 votes

#10.3 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 6:36 PM EST

xrayspex

I strongly support actions to reduce deforestation. Trees are nature's air filters and we should protect them for not only their shade but the fact that they provide wood to build houses and furniture.

2 votes

#10.4 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 6:39 PM EST

clarke ong

You know, funny thing happens when you eliminate that shade.

Seems as if the ground heats up.

Imagine.

3 votes

#10.5 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 6:43 PM EST

Conk

I can't believe that a very, very heavy snow fall occurred in North America in January. We could never, never have expected such a thing to have happened.

We must all take very strict measures to control Carbon Dioxide levels immediately or else we will soon hear of places such as central Australia near Alice Springs experiencing warm temperatures and a lack of snow in January.

5 votes

#11 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 8:03 PM EST

ScienceGuy-356641

It's not rocket science. (Okay, maybe for some folks it is)

Unusual weather phenomena at both ends of the spectrum are completely consistent with the climate change model. Hence, both groups are right -- except for the conclusion of a definite causal relationship, i.e., it would be valid to state that extreme high and low snow levels can be caused by global warming.

5 votes

#12 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 9:01 PM EST

MJV in Wisconsin

it would be valid to state that extreme high and low snow levels can be caused by global warming.

It would also be valid to state that extreme high and low snow levels can be caused by more, or less snow falling.

6 votes

#12.1 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 9:38 PM EST

Conk

It would seem that extreme high and low snow levels can be caused by the existence of weather. It snowed in Illinois---how shocking. It also snowed in Massachusetts---I do declare I am so very surprised.

5 votes

#12.2 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 9:41 PM EST

MJV in Wisconsin

It snowed in Illinois---how shocking. It also snowed in Massachusetts

It snowed here in Wisconsin as well ... in February of all months. I spent 6+ hours shoveling out from under all of this "Global Warming" here in Wisconsin.

7 votes

#12.3 - Wed Feb 2, 2011 9:55 PM EST

Steve-2081387

Its supposed to snow here in Houston tomorrow, damn that global warming.

3 votes

#12.4 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:11 AM EST

ScienceGuy-356641

All true. A severe winter is not necessarily the result of climate change, but neither is it definitive evidence that global warming is a fallacy. To suggest otherwise demonstrates complete ignorance regarding the basis of the climate change model.

3 votes

#12.5 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:23 AM EST

SayWhat-1315936

ScienceGuy-356641

It's not rocket science. (Okay, maybe for some folks it is)

It might as well be.

Ever notice that the more people deny something the more derogatory and sarcastic they get? Must be the fear of what they don't understand.

This is a scary situation. Right now people are freezing to death because power is out. Where I live right now it is below zero and I'm really grateful to have heat and electricity that works.

But the big picture, the real truth is it doesn't matter if it is "normal". The climate around the world is changing and has been changing. Al Gore isn't the cause. Calling him names isn't going to change anything.

The 3 percent of the Earth that is the Equatorial Rain forests are being destroyed. Fact.

That area is very important to the world environment. Fact.

That's one part to this equation. What we need to do is figure out how to stop it and some of the other situations that we as humans have created.

Those of you that want to call BS and pretend that everything is OK and feel the need to hurl childish insults at the rest of us, go ahead. If what we believe is true, that we need to figure out a way to adapt or change how we live, then you will benefit also. If it is true and we fail, then we all will die.

Either way I for one won't be jumping up and down yelling that we told you so.

But it would be nice if you all educated yourselves instead of reacting in fear. You might find out that Glen Beck and the rest have been lying to you.

4 votes

#12.6 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:30 AM EST

Uthaclena

ScienceGuy-356641

It's useless talking to True Believers, whether the subject is the climate or evolution; as most of the comments in this thread demonstrate, many of our fellow Americans are as stupid about the sciences as they are about history. Pride, Shiny Toys, and Immediate Gratification, those are the real American Values.

2 votes

#13 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:32 AM EST

Starseeker

I got it
Warmer = global warming
Cooler = global warming
Wetter = global warming
Drier = global warming
Etc. = global warming

There's a new brand of snake oil = global warming.

9 votes

#14 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 3:49 AM EST

1+2=potatoe

I got it
Warmer = global warming
Cooler = global warming
Wetter = global warming
Drier = global warming
Etc. = global warming

There's a new brand of snake oil = global warming.

And if you deny global warming, you most likely are a racist!

5 votes

#14.1 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 6:01 AM EST

Starseeker

Flame off

3 votes

#14.2 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 6:03 AM EST

Starseeker

Something to consider:

Keeping it simple for you to follow, a little analogy. I worked with a group of scientists on a project and one day scientist s1 rushed in and proclaimed I solved the problem. If you add 7 (keeping it simple) here all the calculations work and everything fits. Next day s2 comes in and shows that for datasets if you add 13 all the calculations work and everything fits. s4 and s5 confirm s1 and s2s conclusions. This scenario continues ... more "magic numbers" and conclusive calculations all confirmed by peers for given datasets. The problem is every one of these was wrong.

a short aside; I liken this to the parallel universe theories. First there was 1 parallel universe then 3, then 7 followed by 11, and 13... Now there are infinite parallel universes. All famously documented and very professionally presented in convincing fashion. There is great following... many agree and the masses buy into it... Proven fact? No... Its theory.

Conclusionist mathematics has lead many astray. You can follow and check the calculations which bear out as mathematically operationally correct but wrong.

FACT. Geological records shows periods of warming followed by periods of cooling in a repeating cycle etc.

Snake oil practitioner’s predictions of warming bear themselves out regardless of cause all the while pointing to the conclusion and proclaiming knowledge.

Snake Oil.

3 votes

#14.3 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 8:09 AM EST

Uthaclena

Starseeker

I got it
Warmer = global warming
Cooler = global warming
Wetter = global warming
Drier = global warming
Etc. = global warming

There's a new brand of snake oil = global warming.

No snake oil: just ignorance of environmental science on your part, unfortunately. It's not "either/or," it's "and."

2 votes

#14.4 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 8:15 AM EST

Starseeker

as proof the snake oil believer offers a personal attack. Flame off.

4 votes

#14.5 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 8:18 AM EST

Uthaclena

Starseeker

No personal attack: "ignorance" is a lack of knowledge. "Stupid" or "Idiot" would be a personal attack, and I suggested neither.

#14.6 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:11 PM EST

Prophat247

No personal attack: "ignorance" is a lack of knowledge. "Stupid" or "Idiot" would be a personal attack, and I suggested neither.

Which is precisely why I deleted jfxgillis' comment and not yours.

3 votes

#14.7 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:13 PM EST

Uthaclena

Prophat247

No personal attack: "ignorance" is a lack of knowledge. "Stupid" or "Idiot" would be a personal attack, and I suggested neither.

Which is precisely why I deleted jfxgillis' comment and not yours.

And I appreciate a fair hand in debates!

1 vote

#14.8 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 12:01 AM EST

tmac-425222

I got it
Warmer = global warming
Cooler = global warming
Wetter = global warming
Drier = global warming
Etc. = global warming

There's a new brand of snake oil = global warming.

If they were all predicted in the same place at the same time it would be snake oil. But global warming can produce all of these simultaneously in different areas of the globe. Your attempt to assert that this is snake oil makes me wonder what you are selling.

1 vote

#14.9 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 9:40 AM EST

Starseeker

Tmac, people who wonder such things tend to be ignorant of the world around them or racists.

uthacleanah, you are most likely a racist and are clearly ignorant of any scientific methods.

2 votes

#14.10 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 7:07 PM EST

Oliver Shagnastey

1+2=potatoe

I got it
Warmer = global warming
Cooler = global warming
Wetter = global warming
Drier = global warming
Etc. = global warming

There's a new brand of snake oil = global warming.

And if you deny global warming, you most likely are a racist!

#13.1 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 5:01 AM CST

How does denial of global warming make one a racist? That is absurd! It is like the following logic : All cows have four legs, therefore all animals with four legs are cows!
Your remark about those who depute the concept of global warming are racist is abhorrent, evil, and just plain wrong!
Some immature dimly lite individuals call anyone that disagrees with them racist. Poor misguided creatures!

3 votes

#14.11 - Sat Feb 5, 2011 8:26 AM EST

Mongowildman

It should be obvious.

GW is the "IN" term for blaming all the ills upon. If it is bad, blame it on GW. Since those who do not believe the hype about it also don't have all these problems, then they are equated with those claimed to be racists.

2 votes

#14.12 - Sat Feb 5, 2011 10:54 AM EST

jfxgillisDeleted

Prophat247

jfxgillis - deleted because your comment is a personal attack.

2 votes

#16 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 10:22 AM EST

jfxgillisDeleted

Prophat247

jfxgillis - stop with the personal attacks.

2 votes

#16.2 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 1:54 PM EST

jfxgillis

prophat:

It's not a personal attack. I'm making an assessment about a category of people who adhere to a certain belief system.

1 vote

#16.3 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 6:52 PM EST

mtherof3

I like to watch viners discuss this. Tagging. : ) Thanks, prophat!

2 votes

#17 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 10:51 AM EST

DirtClod88

I just wish Al would quit being distracted by this debate and get on with inventing Internet 2.0.

3 votes

#18 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:22 PM EST

Prophat247

DirtClod88 - where have you been, he already did!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet2

4 votes

#18.1 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 12:40 PM EST

DirtClod88

Dang! I just can't KEEP UP with this guy! What a brilliant mind! LOL

3 votes

#18.2 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 1:35 PM EST

Oliver Shagnastey

Al Gore's fat ass comes from overeating! He is not a Scientist, or technician. He isn't even a good politician. If Al could blow as hard as he sucks, he could change the jet streams, ergo the weather pattern!

4 votes

#19 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 3:36 PM EST

ma91744-1401618

I'm drunk of my a*s, but I I believe it causes both. As I understand it, when the warm water flowing from the Gulf of Mexico slows down or no longer makes it's way up the North Atlantic to keep the cold water in the North Atlantic, the cold water moves down the Atlantic and with it bringing cold weather, like snow and sh*t. While in other parts of the world, will experience high temperatures.

Some nerd out there should figure out how to collect, filter, and bottle the excess snow the crackers are shoveling out on the East Coast and sell it or deliver it to other parts of the U.S. that are experiencing drought.

That's all I have to say about this.

Cheers!

1 vote

#20 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 4:02 PM EST

BLOGER-486140

There is climate and their is weather. Don't confuse the two. You would be better off reading the science instead of listening to politicians. Reading the science is hard and requires intelligence and a critical mind. Too many would rather listen to the politicians and pundits on both sides ot the issue.

3 votes

#21 - Thu Feb 3, 2011 8:39 PM EST

Uthaclena

BLOGER-486140

Reading the science is hard and requires intelligence and a critical mind. Too many would rather listen to the politicians and pundits on both sides ot the issue.

Your implication, unfortunately, is that politicians and pundits cannot be intelligent or correct. While I agree that few Public Personalities in these media-driven times are straight up and honest, it does not follow that none of them are. And there does seem to be a substantial degree of resistance just because Al Gore is the figurehead, because obviously a significant number of people despise him.

However, if someone like, oh, Carl Sagan, were he still alive, or Paul McCartney were to present the same message based on the same information, I suspect that some of the reactions would be different.

#21.1 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 12:09 AM EST

Oliver Shagnastey

Paul the abusive husband McCartney! Oh yeah he knows a lot! Communist bastard!

3 votes

#21.2 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 9:23 AM EST

tom sevigny

He's a knight in the Queen's court now along with Elton John.

3 votes

#21.3 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 8:51 PM EST

Oliver Shagnastey

I thought Elton was the queen!

2 votes

#21.4 - Sat Feb 5, 2011 8:15 AM EST

Mongowildman

Elizabeth isn't the ONLY queen in England...

1 vote

#21.5 - Sat Feb 5, 2011 10:55 AM EST

tom sevigny

Progressive politicians and science....oh my!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMrxC-qEHb8

Al Gore is to science what Barack Obama is to geography...er umm with his 57 states and their lack of comprehension of the U.S. Constitution is even more disconcerting.

5 votes

#22 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 7:04 AM EST

tmac-425222

Progressive politicians and science....oh my!!!

Yeah, they are the products of those liberal elitist universities where they teach things like science and don't allow creationism into the science curriculum. They keep trying to sell us things like evolution and quantum voodoo. They are the ones who insisted that we have seat belts and gas tanks that don't explode and damned near wrecked our economy with their demands for environmental safeguards.

1 vote

#22.1 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 9:48 AM EST

tom sevigny

tmac,

if that's supposed to be sarcasm, you need practice.

3 votes

#22.2 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 8:50 PM EST

tom sevigny

In a nutshell...Al Gore is full of Sheeeeeeeeet which makes him the perfect posterboy for AGW

6 votes

#23 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 7:05 AM EST

nmbg

Massive snow. Massive cold. Massive flooding. Massive drought. Massive heat. Massive hysteria. Massive incivility. Massive nut allergies. Massive stupidity. Massive hemmorhoids.

Of course, there are only 2 possible causes for everything that ails you: global warming and/or George Bush.

1 vote

#24 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 10:48 AM EST

tom sevigny

We call it global weirdness now instead of global warming...

3 votes

#24.1 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 8:48 PM EST

Oliver Shagnastey

Many years ago when my youngest child was about 5 or 6 he asked why do they call those things in space asteroids and the things on you butt hemorrhoids? It seems that it should be the other way.

How do you answer a question like that till you quit laughing?

3 votes

#24.2 - Sat Feb 5, 2011 9:12 PM EST

nmbg

By the looks of Al Gore these days, it looks like he emits more than his fair share of greenhouse gases.

3 votes

#25 - Fri Feb 4, 2011 10:49 AM EST

Oliver Shagnastey

nmbg What else can be expected from a gas bag?

2 votes

#25.1 - Sat Feb 5, 2011 8:17 AM EST

northern girl

Just think of the methane coming out of that fat ass!

3 votes

#25.2 - Sat Feb 5, 2011 3:32 PM EST

Starseeker

i think he might be eligible for cap and trade ... fitting him with a methane sequestration device.

2 votes

#25.3 - Sat Feb 5, 2011 6:16 PM EST

northern girl

... fitting him with a methane sequestration device

If you want to get that close, be my guest...

4 votes

#25.4 - Sat Feb 5, 2011 8:30 PM EST

Starseeker

ah, everything is automated now days don't ya know... long probe, big tank, heavy straps... next.

2 votes

#25.5 - Sat Feb 5, 2011 9:31 PM EST

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF:

Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
Newsvine is a property of

	More Snow
	Less Snow

New Users:

Existing Users:

PROPHAT247

Al Gore Says Massive Amounts of Snow Caused By Warming, But Other Democrats Say Lack Of Snow Caused By Warming

Live Poll

Published to:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF: