alt.energy.renewable

00NBZ wrote:

>
>
> March 29, 2008
>
>
>
> http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/03/joe_bastardi_responds_to_gores.html
>
>
>
>
> Our own long-range forecast expert Joe Bastardi posted a strongly worded
> response to some of Al Gore's comments from the 60 Minutes Interview in
> his blog on the AccuWeather.com Professional site Friday . Here it
> is................
>
>
>
>
>
> UNBELIEVABLE: Gore to 60 MINUTES: Doubting Global Warming Is Manmade
> Like Believing Earth Is Flat.
>
>
>
> I am absolutely astounded that someone who refuses to publicly debate
> anyone on this matter


Oh Bozo, there is no one to debate. Why don't you give us the name of
someone who is willing to present publicly, i.e., in a public forum,
their arguments that global warming is not occurring.



and has no training in the field narrated a movie
> where frames of nuclear explosions were interspersed in a subliminal way
> in scenes of droughts and flood, among other major gaffes, can say these
> things and then have them accepted... by anyone.
>
>
>
> The list of degreed meteorologists, climatologists, scientists, that
> signed the Manhatten declaration stating their disagreement with Mr.
> Gore's premises grows by the day.
>
>
>
> What gets me most is he goes on unchallenged one-on-one on this. Never
> in all my years of competition have I seen someone elevated to a level
> that he is, in any thing, without any face-to-face competition to
> establish credibility.
>
>
>
> When someone gets a PhD, his or her thesis is normally attacked, for
> lack of a better word, in something known as the "orals," at least it
> was for those venturing into those waters at PSU.
>
>
>
> In other words, a group of people still in a higher academic standing
> than you, one you want to ascend to, will try to get you to defend what
> you do in a way where you show what you know, not by some programmed
> unchallenged remark, but by competition with the people that are
> criticizing. Why? Because you can defend what you know, if you have
> worked hard enough. It is typical of the mentality of this person, that
> he thinks that he should be able to get something for nothing, just go
> on unchecked, hurling insults at people who have forgotten more than he
> will ever know.
>
>
>
> You be the judge of this statement, and consider the source: Gore to 60
> MINUTES: Doubting Global Warming Is Manmade Like Believing Earth Is Flat.
>
>
>
> In fact, here is an excerpt : "...I think that those people are in such
> a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they're almost like
> the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie
> lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat," says Gore.
> "That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off," he tells
> Stahl.
>
>
>
> I want to say that I have tried my best to be opened minded about this
> issue. But the more research I do, the more some of the claims of Bill
> Gray and John Coleman ring true.
>
>
>
> However, I am all for non-carbon based energy as a way of increasing the
> quality of life, and that has nothing to do with what I consider grossly
> overstated scare tactics. Let me direct you to a site to keep an eye on:
> http://www.francis.edu/ActionCenter.htm I have been told they are
> developing some kind of home-based energy generator powered by wind. The
> idea is you store the energy created by wind. Given I live in the
> Boulder, Colorado of the East, count me in. As it is, we are getting a
> house with a geothermal unit in it that cuts electric bills by up to
> 50%. So I don't need to hear I am some kind of nut that thinks the Earth
> is flat, especially from a man who refuses to stand up one-on-one with
> anyone that can confront him fact for fact.
>
>
>
> Last night I read an interesting story. Global warming is responsible
> for 770,000,000 people on Earth starving. Is that so? Never mind it
> could be a myriad of things, let's say that is right. The article also
> says that my 2085, that number may be 880,000,000.
>
>
>
> These people have to assume that we are plain stupid. Seriously. The
> Earth's population has increased four-fold in the last 100 years.
> Suppose we assume in the next 80 years we only double the population.
> Right now the percentage of people starving because of global warming
> (and I am being nice in giving them their figure, even though any
> objective person would question that) is about 13 percent of the world's
> population. In 2085, assuming 12,000,000,000 people, (it's liable to be
> more) if only 880,000,000 million are starving because of the climate,
> that means the percentage has dropped to less than 8 percent. So if we
> use that reasoning, global warming would have increased the chance of
> feeding a greater percentage of people.
>
>
>
> But you see what is done here. It's the same thing that is done across
> the board. Games played, and unless you look, you'll get taken.
>
>
>
> It is funny. Lenin said, in his statement that was meant to say the ends
> justify the means as far as building his utopian society, that one has
> to break a few eggs to make an omelet. We can argue if that is valid,
> for one would have to assume almost a messianic quality to the person to
> know they are right about the future. Is Mssr. Gore assuming that about
> this issue? But if one destroys the entire egg itself, one cannot make
> an omelet (I hard boil my eggs and only eat the whites, so maybe that is
> why all this is hard for me to understand).
>
>
>
> It's astounding, I am constantly reading and re-reading counter
> arguments to this idea. Let's remember, some of the major proponents
> with high powered doctorates that are on the other side, brilliant minds
> no doubt like Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann, did not get their doctorate
> DEFENDING their global warming stance. It is not like there was a PhD
> dissertation with six PhDs, three pro and three con, challenging the
> assertions here. These come out of the natural curiousity and good will
> of these men, and I do not think they are anything less. However, you
> see the same thing with me in a way, when convinced of an idea on the
> future, because of hard work and research it's very tough to back away.
> There is a difference, though, of blowing the 3-inch line on a
> snowstorm, or that Omaha's winter was colder than I thought. We are
> talking issues that ORIGINATE WITH THE WEATHER, but have far reaching
> tentacles.
>
>
>
> Now, anyone that believes he knows absolutely what is going to happen
> with the climate in the future, well you be the judge as to who is the
> card carrying member of the flat Earth society, that person, or the
> skeptic.
>
>
>
> Nice way to start the weekend.
>
>
>
>