Al Gore: Republicans tell me privatel...

Al Gore: Republicans tell me privately they believe in global warming

There are 28 comments on the Washington Times story from Aug 22, 2013, titled Al Gore: Republicans tell me privately they believe in global warming. In it, Washington Times reports that:

Former Vice President Al Gore said Republicans secretly tell him they believe in global warming because they're afraid to break ranks with the GOP .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Washington Times.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
SpaceBlues

United States

#1 Aug 22, 2013
Name names, please.

“Conserve Wildlife Habitat”

Since: Dec 10

SE Michigan

#2 Aug 22, 2013
I can believe this. Most don't have the balls to stand up for what they believe in. Still doesn't mean it's caused by man though.
The earth and climate has been changing for 4 billion years. We've been recording temperatures for 150 years.
Nuff said.
SpaceBlues

United States

#3 Aug 22, 2013
Raptor in Michigan wrote:
I can believe this. Most don't have the balls to stand up for what they believe in. Still doesn't mean it's caused by man though.
The earth and climate has been changing for 4 billion years. We've been recording temperatures for 150 years.
Nuff said.
You answered yourself. It's in the recent 150 years, fossil fuel burning took off exponentially.

Today 90 million tons of man-made ghg emissions are released daily. Deal with that!
Cordwainer Trout

Brownsville, KY

#4 Aug 22, 2013
There are many reliable scientific methods of measuring global temperature changes far beyond 150 years. All these methods show the Earth going through much warmer periods without CO2 increases, nor any other human impact. The common methods of climate hysterics include not only ridicule and other Alinsky methods of terror scholarship, but obfuscation of scientific method, when it suits a hysterical politic. Too bad such tactics can be a two way street...

“Climate Hysterics Are Back…Coming Out Of Their Caves”
http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/18/german-met...

Since: Aug 13

Hilo, HI

#5 Aug 22, 2013
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
There are many reliable scientific methods of measuring global temperature changes far beyond 150 years. All these methods show the Earth going through much warmer periods without CO2 increases, nor any other human impact. The common methods of climate hysterics include not only ridicule and other Alinsky methods of terror scholarship, but obfuscation of scientific method, when it suits a hysterical politic. Too bad such tactics can be a two way street...
“Climate Hysterics Are Back…Coming Out Of Their Caves”
http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/18/german-met...
No one is denying that solar irradiance goes through long term large scale changes that have a huge impact on the climate. The problem is that global temperatures are going up while solar irradiance is declining slightly. If it isn't CO2, then what is driving the temperature rise?
to bad

Beckley, WV

#6 Aug 23, 2013
that global temperatures are NOT rising.
Cordwainer Trout

Brownsville, KY

#7 Aug 23, 2013
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is denying that solar irradiance goes through long term large scale changes that have a huge impact on the climate. The problem is that global temperatures are going up while solar irradiance is declining slightly. If it isn't CO2, then what is driving the temperature rise?
There is no historically significant temperature rise. Temperatures for 17 years have plateaued. Sea levels have not risen. There has been the opposite of desertification. Arctic and Antarctic ice is expanding. Polar bears are thriving. There are less tornadoes. There are fewer tropical storms of any degree. This past July has set new records for low temperatures across America. Charting solar activity and actual temperature variance on the same chart are almost mirror images, unlike any of the projections of warmists.
http://www.thegwpf.org/looming-weak-solar-act...
to bad

Beckley, WV

#8 Aug 23, 2013
the warmist story is failing

“Conserve Wildlife Habitat”

Since: Dec 10

SE Michigan

#9 Aug 23, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You answered yourself. It's in the recent 150 years, fossil fuel burning took off exponentially.
Today 90 million tons of man-made ghg emissions are released daily. Deal with that!
I never said man doesn't pollute the earth or the air. But what we do is not THAT significant to change the climate.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#10 Aug 23, 2013
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is denying that solar irradiance goes through long term large scale changes that have a huge impact on the climate.
A one in a thousand part change is hardly 'large scale'.
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that global temperatures are going up while solar irradiance is declining slightly. If it isn't CO2, then what is driving the temperature rise?
The 200 year cycle in 'solar cycle magnitude' is indeed cycling to a low by 2030 or so and countering some small amount of AGW. As you say, that will have no long term effect as the next cycle will start and add a small amount to the 2030 and later period.
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#11 Aug 23, 2013
Those who suggest that mitigating AGW would mean a few elite groups would control the economy are correct. The curious thing is why do the Republicans not want a piece of this power? They do want power and will do and say just about anything to anyone to acquire it. So my conclusion is that since it is not a matter of integrity to be against mitigation it is reasonable to assume it boils down to the fractured Republican Leadership is simply NOT bright enough to take advantage of this power grab opportunity. IF they get their "leadership" act together we can see CAGW mitigation in our future even as glaciers consume Kansas.

Since: Aug 13

Hilo, HI

#12 Aug 23, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
A one in a thousand part change is hardly 'large scale'.
<quoted text>
The 200 year cycle in 'solar cycle magnitude' is indeed cycling to a low by 2030 or so and countering some small amount of AGW. As you say, that will have no long term effect as the next cycle will start and add a small amount to the 2030 and later period.
You are very hard core!

I am speaking in terms of the Milankovich cycles.

The amount of solar radiation (insolation) in the Northern Hemisphere at 65° N seems to be related to occurrence of an ice age. Astronomical calculations show that 65° N summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years.[18] A regime of eccentricity lower than the current value will last for about the next 100,000 years. Changes in northern hemisphere summer insolation will be dominated by changes in obliquity &#949;. No declines in 65° N summer insolation, sufficient to cause a glacial period, are expected in the next 50,000 years.

The irridation ranges from 440 w/m-2 to 540 w/m-2, which is a lot more than one in a thousand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cyc...
B as in B S as in S

Eden Prairie, MN

#13 Aug 23, 2013
"Former Vice President Al Gore said Republicans secretly tell him they believe in global warming because they're afraid to break ranks with the GOP ."

Awe, is that not just the most precious!

Republican 'Political Cowards' are also Republican "Climate Cowards"!

Too cute!

Gotta love all them dumb f--k Republicans!!!
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#14 Aug 24, 2013
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
You are very hard core!
I am speaking in terms of the Milankovich cycles.
The amount of solar radiation (insolation) in the Northern Hemisphere at 65° N seems to be related to occurrence of an ice age.
But it is not a change in the SOLAR CONSTANT that does this. It is a small change in the plane of the orbit combined with axial tilt.

http://tinyurl.com/l3rd3qb

This affects the strength of solar insolation at high latitudes. Even then, it would not be significant except for the long term feedback of snow layers as albedo modifiers.

http://tinyurl.com/l3rd3qb
The Integral wrote:
<quoted text>
The irridation ranges from 440 w/m-2 to 540 w/m-2, which is a lot more than one in a thousand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cyc...
The strength of the SUN is constant. It is only WHERE the sun is strongest that changes. Sorry if you find details like this 'hard core'.
SpaceBlues

Desoto, TX

#15 Aug 26, 2013
Raptor in Michigan wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said man doesn't pollute the earth or the air. But what we do is not THAT significant to change the climate.
Sorry to miss your post.

How surprising it is that you just say that with global evidence to the contrary.

Ocean acidification? Over the last 200 years, oceans have absorbed about 525 billion tons, roughly 50 percent of human-released carbon dioxide emissions. Read more at:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/08/2...

Questions?
Cordwainer Trout

Brownsville, KY

#16 Aug 27, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry to miss your post.
How surprising it is that you just say that with global evidence to the contrary.
Ocean acidification? Over the last 200 years, oceans have absorbed about 525 billion tons, roughly 50 percent of human-released carbon dioxide emissions. Read more at:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/08/2...
Questions?
Such fear mongering and arrogance. "Any mention of “acidification” of the oceans is between naive and dishonest."
http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/19/ocean-acidi...

"The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, &#8764;55 million years ago) was an interval of global warming and ocean acidification attributed to rapid release and oxidation of buried carbon. We show that the onset of the PETM coincided with a prominent increase in the origination and extinction of calcareous phytoplankton. Yet major perturbation of the surface-water saturation state across the PETM was not detrimental to the survival of most calcareous nannoplankton taxa and did not impart a calcification or ecological bias to the pattern of evolutionary turnover. Instead, the rate of environmental change appears to have driven turnover, preferentially affecting rare taxa living close to their viable limits."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/314/5806/17...

“Conserve Wildlife Habitat”

Since: Dec 10

SE Michigan

#17 Aug 27, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry to miss your post.
How surprising it is that you just say that with global evidence to the contrary.
Ocean acidification? Over the last 200 years, oceans have absorbed about 525 billion tons, roughly 50 percent of human-released carbon dioxide emissions. Read more at:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/08/2...
Questions?
Yes. Since the earth was formed roughly 4 billion years ago, we have had hot periods and cold periods- all happening without man in the picture. What makes climate changes now the fault of man?

Again, I never said we don't pollute too much. We do. But I do not believe we actually change the climate.
SpaceBlues

United States

#18 Aug 27, 2013
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
<quoted text>
Such fear mongering and arrogance. "Any mention of “acidification” of the oceans is between naive and dishonest."
http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/19/ocean-acidi...
"The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, &#8764;55 million years ago) was an interval of global warming and ocean acidification attributed to rapid release and oxidation of buried carbon. We show that the onset of the PETM coincided with a prominent increase in the origination and extinction of calcareous phytoplankton. Yet major perturbation of the surface-water saturation state across the PETM was not detrimental to the survival of most calcareous nannoplankton taxa and did not impart a calcification or ecological bias to the pattern of evolutionary turnover. Instead, the rate of environmental change appears to have driven turnover, preferentially affecting rare taxa living close to their viable limits."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/314/5806/17...
Container trout, did you read all that?

Judy aka Prof Curry is uncertain. What's new about her position in life? Uncertainty. She can't handle the AGW, it's too hard for her. Thanks to her first degree in geography. LOL.

What else are you alarmed about? It should be the daily manmade ghg emissions amounting to 90 million tons. You can't sweep them under the carpet!
SpaceBlues

United States

#19 Aug 27, 2013
Raptor in Michigan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. Since the earth was formed roughly 4 billion years ago, we have had hot periods and cold periods- all happening without man in the picture. What makes climate changes now the fault of man?
Again, I never said we don't pollute too much. We do. But I do not believe we actually change the climate.
Aww RIM, your brain is kaput. You are not learning anything new but you are able to repeat the same few things like a robot.

Is that what happens to people in MI due to the polluted fish they eat?
SpaceBlues

United States

#20 Aug 27, 2013
Hey folks, read this one:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/235...

P.S. Would RIM read? Not kidding.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll Will it, won't it? Part 3 (Aug '12) 32 min litesong 3,160
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 hr Fit2Serve 60,042
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 6 hr Too Easy 9,818
News Global warming made Paris floods far more likel... 8 hr Fair Game 105
News Hundreds of Scientists Urge Obama to Halt Arcti... 8 hr IB DaMann 6
News Former astronaut scoffs at global warming (Feb '09) 9 hr Into The Night 2,393
News Climate change implicated in France floods 10 hr IB DaMann 10
More from around the web