But could Gore win Tennessee?

"Then there's the question that still lingers from the 2000 race. Could Gore win his native Tennessee?"

Frank,

The short answer is yes, at least in 2000 it was possible. More on that latter.

I saw Gore speak in Boise on Jan 22 at BSU. He is funny, smart, and likable. I don't know who was controlling him in '00, but ya got to keep them away from Gore. Let him be Al Gore.

For the Democrats to cede the entire Midwest in '00 was a crime and a travesty. Who was advising these people!? Was the DNC infiltrated? Yes, with stupidity, not Cons.

Gore was running away from Bill Clinton, but that was a mistake.
He should have called Bill and said; 'OK screw up, here is your assignment; your job is to win Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee. That's all. Go there and work.'

Florida should have been irrelevant in '00.

No, Al couldn't carry Tennessee.

Polls from the dailykos and alternet. Now that represents a good "cross-section" of America?

As far as money, remember since his days as a loser in 2000, big Al has had an Oscar nominated comedy - "An Inconvient Movie". He also is on the BOD of Google, which he has made a handsome fortune from. He could self-finance.

He is anti-Iraq war, so he would steal votes from the Swamps' Boy Wonder.

I wouldn't come within a hanging chad of voting for the fool, but it would be entertaining with him and Hillary, since there was no love lost during the Clinton Administration between them.

I think it would be cool if Gore calls up Obama and gives him some tips on Hillary. A little helping hand and maybe a public endorsement would go along way in making sure Senator Obama is successful in upending Hillary.
I really doubt Gore will get in unless no one can knock of that woman. he could. but, I also believe that Sen. Obama has a very good chance of crushing her majesty.
I am a woman so the myth that Hillary gets the backing of women is a laugh. Most all women I know can't stand her.
We are democrats and we don't want Hillary.
Obama 08

Terry,

Did you see my question to you regarding the 'debt ratio' of the US at 79%?

It's in the 'Bush deficit hawk' blog.

I'm not badgering you here, buddy. Actually wondering what your opine is.

Has to do with net worth of the nation.

Terry,

Are you still holding out on the reality of man-made global warming? Even Bush understands that it is true, and that says A TON.

Soon enough you will move beyond the flat-earth, knuckle-dragging denial you have exhibited up until now and on to the logical next argument for your ideology: that it is real but the solution (carbon taxes leading to a market-based reduction of emissions or other similar alternatives) is worse than the problem. Or that since India and China won't do it than, heck, we shouldn't either.

That Al Gore was way out in front of this issue, and indeed helped to awaken the public to a serious national security threat, is an arrow in his quiver. I don't know that he will be or should be the Democratic nominee (though I definitely won't say right now that he shouldn't be if he gets into the gym and loses some weight), but he is the single most credible voice on environmental issues in American politics. That his accomplishments in that arena were minimal in the Clinton Administration may prove to be more of a stumbling block than his work in exposing an "Inconvenient Truth."

Screw the "Earls" in Tennesse,if former President Al Gore runs he's got my vote.

The rest of the country doesn't agree with the rednecks in the south who gave us President Rambo anyway.

A Gore/Obama ticket would keep the Whitehouse out of GOP hands for 16 yrs.

It would be good for America after the 8 yr run of W./Cheney madness.

P.S. I can't wait for Big Al to win his Oscar and the Noble Peace Award.
I can already hear the GOP "BillO's" crying foul.

Gore makes me want to throw up. Cheesy, fake panderer. Too much makeup too.

But then, I think global warming is a red herring anyway.

Al Gore lost to Bush in 2000, not because of Ralph Nader or The Supreme Court,but because he lost his home state of Tennessee. And I personally want to thank them for their knowledgeable voting, because if Al won,we'd be fighting the terrorists on our own soil.He would of called 9/11 a matter for the police and go on his liberal way as the terrorists kept attacking,like they did during his 8 years with B.J.Clinton
And as far as his mythical global warming,where was he and B.J. when The Senate rejected the Kyoto Treaty "95 to ZERO!" in 1997? They were very quiet.
Paulo

Doing the 3 minutes of online research that Frank James never does, I found out that "Andrea Ronhovde", the only named spokesperson for "Draft Gore" 2008, is an old hand at drafting Gore. She tried in 2003 to draft Gore in 2004. See http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/caf0603/caf060503dgore.html

The "draft' efforts proved a joke then. But that little fact is one of many that you'll never learn if you only read the "Swamp".

For the record: I've said it here all along that my Democratic dream ticket is Gore/ Obama. That said, Gore is the only other Democrat to whom Obama should consider playing second fiddle. Derail Hilary Clinton as soon as possible. Obama '08

Terry-
You will like this article,of course the man that wrote it doesn't have the credentials of Al Gore or his puppet follower Byran.

www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Paulo

No matter if global warming is real or not, shouldn't we leave the earth a little nicer than we found it for future generations? I don't understand why people can't see that point.

I agree that Al Gore needs to keep the "handlers" at bay. It would be nice to have an adult in the WH.

Hey everybody, here's a good article on Paulo's Dr. Tim Ball and his associates in the Anti-warming crowd.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/175673

Make up your own mind whether to believe these guys or the thousands of scientists who took part in the IPCC.

Draft Al Gore people creates thousands of illegal fake signatures using 75 people , who stole money from Katrina Victims.

In order to Fool John Edwards supporters, Hillary’s supporters and Obama supporters unemployed Draft Gore Con Artists create fake signatures to fool the Americans. These people don’t have any moral values or ethics, basically Draft gore is supported by few unemployed desperate old Ladies who are looking for attention.

Edwards supporters , Hillary’s supporters Obama supporters never trust the con Artists Draft Al Gore people. These Con Artist are deceiving and lying

Edwards supporters , Hillary’s supporters Obama supporters never trust the con Artists Draft Al Gore people. These Con Artist are deceiving and lying to the Democrats and the Americans with their Fake signatures which they got from few members just Like the way they stole Money from Katrina Victims. Since I am a software developer for the last 13 years I know how they are manipulating and cheating the people by messing around with the software (Elementary Level tricks) . Draft Al gore Idiots think everyone is fools and Idiots like them. These people are Criminals . They want to fool the you Edward’s supporters and Hillary’s supporters and other democratic presidential candidates. These people are worthless Con Artists , Liars and Crooks in the entire Universe. Evil doers, Draft Al gore People are embarrassment for the rest of the Democrats and other Gore supporters. They have may be only 50 to 70 members who support their Criminal Activity. Their behavior is disgrace full for the rest of the democrats and for the Other Americans. All they do is Lie, Cheat , con the Poor Vulnerable Democrats and the Americans.
These people would do anything to con the Americans.

Exposing the Crimes of Draft Al Gore con Artist Monica Friedlander , Susan Madrak, Neo Libman - NeuvoLiberal, MB Williams are thieves and con artists Jan Moore Stole money from the Katrina Victims.

Crimes of Draft Al Gore con Artists stole money

Draft Al Gore Tennessee woman Monica Friedlander steals Money from America By Using Al Gore ' s NameMonica Friedlander , Susan Madrak, Neo Libman - NeuvoLiberal, MB Williams are thieves .
Draft Al Gore stole Money from innocent Katrina Victims Jan Moore Evil witch Stole Money from Katrina VictimsCon Artists and Racist Susan Madrak, Monica Friedlander, Con Artists and Neo Libman ( his Id at DailyKos : NeuvoLiberal ), MB Williams Steal money from American People By lying and conning people that they are Drafting Al Gore. These people are Unemployed worthless liars and crooks who are ripping off the American people .

They would do anything to steal money from the people.They don’t have any communication or connection with AL Gore. Al Gore doesn’t even know that they exist.These people don’t have any Moral Values or Ethics. They will do anything to con the poor vulnerable innocent American People. The same Monica Friedlander encouraged Jan Moore to steal money from the Katrina Victims in 2005. Monica Friedlander taught that Evil vampire Jan Moore how to stole money from the people when she had draftgore.com in 2002 when she was a member of that con operation in 2002. Con Man

However These evil doers are collecting money from the Innocent, vulnerable, democrats and from the Gore supporters by cheating , lying and conning American people. Then there are few X Dean supporters and few other liberal groups like http://drinkingliberally.org/ working for these evil Doers to execute their Evil activities.

Basically they are trying to become famous and popular with your money by deceiving you America. Therefore never trust these con Artist (so called Draft Gore 2008 people) who are trying to steal your money and trying to get credit for what they are not responsible for by deceiving you America and establish fame and popularity for them selves by cheating, lying and deceiving the vulnerable Democrats and other Americans.

Neither does Al Gore has any communication with these criminals nor does he ever recognize them or support them.

Terry and the rest of the Global Warming Brainwashed crowd, please answer these questions:
1. Was Chicago buried under 1 mile of glacier at one time?
2. Has Earth had a history of climate cycles and changes?
3. What produces more CO in one year: man or one volcanic eruption?
4. If we are experiencing the warmest temperatures in 400 years or 1,000 years like we're often told, what made Earth so warm 400 years ago or 1,000 years ago?
5. In the 1600s I believe (or it may have been the 1400s), Earth went through what is called a mini-ice age. Why did Earth cool so much then and why has it warmed since then?
6. In the 1970s many scientists said we were entering another ice age. Why has that changed? And if they were wrong then, could they be wrong today?
7. If global warming is taking place, then why did Tucson get snow this year? Why did LA for the first time since 1960s? Why did we lose more than $1 Billion in citrus crop in California? Why id the Midwest going through one of its coldest stretches in a decade?
8. If ocean temperatures keep warming as global warming enthusiasts claim, then causing more hurricanes (which hurricane expert Dr. William Gray says is nonsense), then why were there so few hurricanes and tropical storms this past season?

Johnny D-

Thankfully there is a cure for your ignorance.

I suggest you read the IPCC Report when it is released in a few days. I think you'll find it enlightening.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

I've read much of that report. Sorry, still don't buy it. I've attended enough conferences and seminars on global warming and its causes than most people could comprehend. I cover the heating, air conditioning and refrigerating industry, which has been at the forefront of the whole global warming/ozone hole debate. 10 years ago I was a global warming believer. I've done enough research, been to enough seminars (most of which have been pro-global warming) to realize there is nothing to it, and that certainly man-made global warming is the true hoax.

Let's see, we can believe the IPCC, NASA, thousands of scientists and common sense or we can believe Terry, Paulo, John D and a couple of other quacks.

Sign up below boys:

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

And as far as his mythical global warming,where was he and B.J. when The Senate rejected the Kyoto Treaty "95 to ZERO!" in 1997? They were very quiet.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | Feb 6, 2007 10:37:38 PM

Paulo:

Glad to see that you leave out "inconvient" facts:

On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[40][41] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States".

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

So the Senate wanted it to be a FAIR treaty to the US and not hamstring the US in the world wide economy. That's quite different from the tone of your post and what you're trying to imply in your never-ending hatred of all things Clinton.

8. If ocean temperatures keep warming as global warming enthusiasts claim, then causing more hurricanes (which hurricane expert Dr. William Gray says is nonsense), then why were there so few hurricanes and tropical storms this past season?

Posted by: John D | Feb 7, 2007 8:39:55 AM

First, global warming enthusiasts? No one is enthusiastic about the prospect of causing irreversable harm to our planet. Second, verifiably the ocean temperatures are warming. Glaciers are breaking up they are being swept away by currents. The PREDICTION is that warmer temps will result in more catastophic hurricanes. As for your claim that there were so few hurricanes and tropical storms this past season. 2006 was on average statistically w/ others years. It of course paled in comparison to the previous season that shattered records w/ 28 named storms. "The forecasters' crystal balls were made cloudy by the unexpected formation of the El Nino phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean in midsummer, weather experts said. Even the most sophisticated computer models couldn't see El Nino coming to dampen tropical activity in the Atlantic." You can read more about it if you would like John D.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/11/30/hurricanes/index.html

John D, I think that Terry agrees with you.

You've asked some of the same questions that I've asked on other threads, and all I've gotten from the likes of Tony is what you got, a link to a site that parrots the the-earth-is-frying-and-it's-all-our-fault orthodoxy and doesn't answer the questions.

Terry-
You will like this article,of course the man that wrote it doesn't have the credentials of Al Gore or his puppet follower Byran.

www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | Feb 6, 2007 11:12:56 PM

Paulo:

You're linking to a story about an anti-global warming puppet; his salary is essentially paid by the petroleum association in Canada, as are his travel expenses, through their support of his group.

He was exposed in the Globe and Mail; you need a subscription to read the article on that site, but the writer also has it posted on his site:

"Mr. Cool: Nurturing doubt about climate change is big business."

http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html

jethro, here is a Q and A with Dr. William Gray, perhaps THE most authority on hurricanes and one of the top meteorologists in the world. You might learn something:

From a Q and A with William Gray:
You don’t believe global warming is causing climate change?

G: No. If it is, it is causing such a small part that it is negligible. I’m not disputing that there has been global warming. There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and ’40s, and then there was a slight global cooling from the middle ’40s to the early ’70s. And there has been warming since the middle ’70s, especially in the last 10 years. But this is natural, due to ocean circulation changes and other factors. It is not human induced.

That must be a controversial position among hurricane researchers.

G: Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical as hell about this whole global-warming thing. But no one asks us. If you don’t know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, “Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.” Well, just because there are two associations, changing with the same sign, doesn’t mean that one is causing the other.

With last year’s hurricane season so active, and this year’s looking like it will be, won’t people say it’s evidence of global warming?

G: The Atlantic has had more of these storms in the least 10 years or so, but in other ocean basins, activity is slightly down. Why would that be so if this is climate change? The Atlantic is a special basin? The number of major storms in the Atlantic also went way down from the middle 1960s to the middle ’90s, when greenhouse gases were going up.

Why is there scientific support for the idea?

G: So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more. Now that the cold war is over, we have to generate a common enemy to support science, and what better common enemy for the globe than greenhouse gases?

Jethro and the rest of the global warming enthusiasts should take a look at this link. Notice the chart with all the warm and cold cycles in it -- or Loony Lefters at least the picture with the pretty colors might grab your attention:

http://www.carolinajournal.com/opinions/display_story.html?id=2592

Gee, I can believe 3000 scientists from 130 countries who have taken part in the IPCC report in some way or I can believe Johnny D. That's a tough one.

"all I've gotten from the likes of Tony is what you got, a link to a site that parrots the the-earth-is-frying-and-it's-all-our-fault orthodoxy and doesn't answer the questions.'

What is it you want Dave, "Global Warming for Dummies" (refering to the book series, not your intellect)? Seriously, The IPCC report is based on a whole mass of research and data that has been on going for a long time. Do you expect someone to point you to each individual resource? You seem unwilling to be open to any report which comes to the conclusion that there is man-made global warming. Let go of your pre concieved notions just a bit, and consider that it's a bit far fetched that all these scientists, and their national governments, are participating in a giant hoax.

I cover the heating, air conditioning and refrigerating industry, which has been at the forefront of the whole global warming/ozone hole debate. [...] I've done enough research, been to enough seminars [...]

Posted by: John D | Feb 7, 2007 10:13:34 AM

Oh my! Could John D be one of what he rips into the most -- a journalist?

Some of that sounds like it's spoken like a true reporter, but maybe a disillusioned B2B reporter at that.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, as I know I'm making an assumption based on select tidbits of lingo.

Hey, here's a neat chart John D:

http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/02.21.jpg

That is a nice chart, Bubba, probably the clearest presentation of historical CO2 concentration that I've seen.

It seems, though, to support John D's position more than Tony's. If atmospheric CO2 concentration is such a driver of climate, why were there the well-documented climate swings that John D describes during the last millennium, with flat CO2 concentration around 280-290 ppm? And, if it didn't drive climate then, why should we believe that it's driving climate now?

The CO2-temperature correlation works well for the last 30 years or so, but breaks down over the longer term. Clearly, we need a new theory here.

I have much more to say about this, but haven't got the time now. More later.

Yes, Jeff C., I AM a journalist and know enough of them to know most have no ability to be objective. Being on the Daily Egyptian many years ago, and I was the only to the right of left of a staff of about 30. Heard things like, "We can't have a staff member take a different viewpoint than the newspaper, so now pro-Reagan column from you," or "If people want to learn about Milton Friedman's or Alan Keyes' economics, they can get one of their books. We don't need a column on their philosophies. But anything liberal? "Oh, this is great. Let's put it in the paper!" And the faculty advisor was a typical left-wing loon too.
But am I a disillusioned B2B reporter? No. We're generally better journalists than what passes for journalists in the newspaper today.

“Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.” Well, just because there are two associations, changing with the same sign, doesn’t mean that one is causing the other.

Posted by: John D | Feb 7, 2007 11:25:27 AM

That's actually correct, John D. It does not necessarily mean that one is causing the other. But the overwhelming scientific evidence suggests that CO2 levels and temperature are related. As one example. Ice core samples can reveal temps and CO2 levels going back thousands of years thanks to science. They show that in the periods where there are higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, temperatures were also higher.

Dave Brann,
You obviously haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth" He addresses your issue w/ that graph in clear and understandable language.

Mr. James,

It's beginning to look as if this thread should be archived in the "Environment" category, too.

I didn't mean the "disillusioned B2B reporter" as a stab and apologize if it was interpereted that way. I meant it more from my work in trade publications: Once you've seen one industry convention, you've seen them all.

Take it as you will, but I respect your viewpoints to the same degree as anyone else's on here. I like most of the debate around here; it's what keeps me coming back day in and day out.

The only bone I pick is when people start out with the name-calling, no matter if it's from Paulo's side or Loon's. It makes anyone's argument seem less credible.

Though name-calling may be the easier jab to throw, why not land the knock-out uppercut and provide people with a more thought-provoking, solid argument to prove a point.

John D,
You were a professional journalist and you do not know how to quote people accurately? And you think "Those areas suffered mostly water damage" is the same thing as saying "Florida just suffered wind damage." Knowing you think you are a reporter is hilarious, especially recounting how many times you've bashed Frank James and Mark Silva. My favorite part of your post is when you say other journalists can't be objective ("most have no ability to be objective") and then later you admit that you got busted for trying to plant conservative leaning opinions into your articles ("We can't have a staff member take a different viewpoint than the newspaper, so now pro-Reagan column from you,").

Janet,

John D could have felt free to plant all the conservative-leaning opinions into columns all he wanted. Opinions are what makes a column a column and not a news story.

Now where it would have become a problem is if he asked to write a pro-Reagan editorial for a newspaper that has a liberal slant, which would obviously conflict with the views of the newspaper at large.

If it indeed happened that he wasn't allowed to write a pro-Reagan column, then shame on the newspaper for not letting differing viewpoints be heard.

But it doesn't sound like the Daily Egyptian had much better editorial judgement in the past than it has recently.

http://www.dailyegyptian.com/fall05/kodeehoax

You're right, Jethro, I haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth." I generally try to get my facts on technical matters from scientists and engineers, not politicians. I've read most of the 2001 IPCC report, dissenting viewpoints from scientists who were on the panel, and lots of other information pro and con. On balance, I remain skeptical.

Since you have seen the movie, how about you fill me, and the rest of us, in? How did Gore dismiss the inconsistencies among that graph, the historical climate record, and the theory of global warming caused by human CO2 emissions?

Oh Janet, you are clueless aren't you? Anyway, political commentary on the commentary pages of a newspaper should feature all points of view, from staff and off staff. News articles should not contain political commentary (hear that Mark, Frank, Jill, etc.?) But a column can contain a viewpoint such as John Kass, Clarence Page, etc. You see, John Kass, Clarence Page, Steve Chapman all work for the Chicago Tribune. They take positions that may not necessarily be in tune with that of the Tribune. I was told by my fellow editors and faculty advisor that it "would confuse the readers if someone from the newspaper had an opinion different from the newspaper." Obviously the position of the SIU Daily Egyptian was a liberal one, with an endorsement of Walter Mondale in 1984, and an endorsement I was assigned to write. Ironic, isn't it?

Oh and Janet, you are misquoting yourself and me. I never compared these comments: And you think "Those areas suffered mostly water damage" is the same thing as saying "Florida just suffered wind damage."
When I brought up how Florida managed in 2004 despite having four major hurricanes hit the state within one month compared to the inability of Louisiana to handle Katrina, you said Florida just suffered wind damage. I took you to task on that, because many coastal areas of Florida also suffered from tidal surge where the hurricanes hit. While I did not quote you verbatim, the meaning was the same. You still discounted the major damage done throughout Florida because it was "just some wind damage."

John D,

Just because you are assigned to write an endorsement doesn't mean you have to agree with the politics. I'm sure the edorsement writers of the Tribune didn't agree with every candidate the editorial board chose to endorse for the mid term elections, especially if they are half as liberal as so many here at The Swamp think they are.

But to piggyback on one of your comments about how "news articles should not contain political commentary (hear that Mark, Frank, Jill, etc.?) But a column can contain a viewpoint."

I don't know how many times it has to be said, but The Swamp isn't news. The reporters may link to or quote news stories, but the posts they make are news analysis in the form of a blog -- the new age of columns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

""We can't have a staff member take a different viewpoint than the newspaper, so now pro-Reagan column from you,"

Johnny D, did your proposed Pro-Reagan column include your trade mark phrase "Looney leftist scum"?

If your writing there was anything like it is here, I can see why they wouldn't give you a column.

Yes, Jeff C., I AM a journalist and know enough of them to know most have no ability to be objective.
Posted by: John D | Feb 7, 2007 1:06:25 PM

After reading post after post from you John, I would say you're as objective as you are liberal.
You wouldn't know truth even if it bit you. What do you right for? Loony toons?

Once again john d...If I say John D is just an idiot...it is not same if I say John D is mostly
an idiot. See the difference?

"you said Florida just suffered wind damage. While I did not quote you verbatim, the meaning was the same. You still discounted the major damage done throughout Florida because it was "just some wind damage."

Posted by: John D | Feb 7, 2007 2:45:07 PM

Do we really need to go over this again, John D? After all you are a professional journalist.

"Those areas suffered mostly wind damage. New Orleans was underwater in case you didn't see the footage of people stranded on rooftops. Sorry to bring facts to the equation."

Posted by: Janet | Jan 24, 2007 3:35:20 PM

Please tell everyone where you see me saying "just some wind damage" As Tony said that day, "simple english Johnny". Just and mostly do not mean the same thing.

Thanks for posting the link to that image, Bubba. Now look at the relationship of the major peaks of temperature to those of CO2. Other writers have found, looking at the relationship on a larger time scale, that the temperature peaks LAG the CO2 peaks by about 800 years. That leads to the conclusion that the temperature drives CO2, not the other way around. One of the same other writers pointed out that anyone who concluded, on the face of those data, that CO2 was driving the temperature would also have no trouble believing that Winston Churchill was instrumental in the defeat of King Harold by William of Normandy at Hastings in 1066!

Dave B.
"It seems, though, to support John D's position more than Tony's. If atmospheric CO2 concentration is such a driver of climate, why were there the well-documented climate swings that John D describes during the last millennium, with flat CO2 concentration around 280-290 ppm? And, if it didn't drive climate then, why should we believe that it's driving climate now?"

Data that support a bigger than normal spike in global warming go back much farther now, than 1000 years. Ice core samples going back many more years show this current upward trend to be off the scale. Yes, it's gone up and down before, but nothing like we are experiencing today.

Precession combined with our elliptical orbit are one cause of long term climate change. But not to the extent of the current acceleration....upwards.

How does John D. have the time to write for anyone but The Swamp?

I promised to make a longer comment . . .

The problem with the CO2/global warming investigation is that there's government money associated with it.

Most of the work on global warming is being done in the United States. 600-some-odd of the 2000 scientists on the IPCC are Americans, and much of their work is financed by government money. Contrary to popular belief, the Bush administration has been active in this area, and has earmarked 5 billion dollars over I-don't-want-to-look-it-up-right-now years for the program. Under those circumstances, there is a strong incentive on the part of the beneficiaries of the government largess to keep the program going, and if they come back and say, "No, there is nothing there," it stops.

I saw this first hand some years ago. In the mid-1980's, I was involved in the use of low-thermal-conductivity ceramics to insulate Diesel engine combustion chambers, on the theory that it would reduce fuel consumption. The initial idea was that heat loss to the cooling water would be reduced, thereby leaving more energy to push the piston down. A little more thought led to the next step: the thermodynamics of the combustion cycle wouldn't allow that, but the exhaust would be hotter and it could be passed through a turbine to extract more power. Finally, two guys who were not exactly chopped liver in the engine profession, Gerhard Woschni in Germany and Shoichi Furuhama in Japan, said that, because the thermal conductance of the wall was not the limiting factor, but the heat transfer coefficient on the gas side was, and the insulated wall would be hotter and thereby thin the thermal boundary layer and increase the gas side heat transfer coefficient, insulating the combustion chamber would actually increase heat loss to the cooling system, and none of this would work. (Sorry to get so technical; got a little carried away.)

Shortly after Woschni and Furuhama's work came out, I attended a workshop on insulated engines in Castine, Maine, with about a hundred other people working in the field. Toward the end of the workshop, a fellow from SwRI who had done some actual engine work that generally bore out Woschni and Furuhama's conclusions presented his work. At the end of his presentation, he sat down on the corner of the table and said, "Gentlemen, ceramics suck." Immediately, there ensued a tactical nuclear exchange, with grown men standing up and shouting at each other across the room. Soon it was clear where the battle lines were drawn; on the side of the ceramics were those from the national laboratories and academia who had grants from the Department of Energy, and on the "ceramics suck" side were people from private industry who had done some work themselves, or who had listened carefully to the data and drawn their own conclusions. Ultimately, the ceramics in heat engines program went away, and was replaced by the coal-burning diesel program, which employed most of the same people. Nobody is trying that any more, either.

Govenment money for global warming investigations is as bad an influence as is money from Exxon-Mobil or any other energy company. Both tend to buy conclusions that will keep the money coming. That's why I try to look beyond the reports, beyond the links, beyond the conclusions, beyond the 2000-scientists-believe-this-so-you-must-be-wrong, appeal-to-authority logical fallacies, to the data and do my own analysis. Having done so, and continuing to do so, I remain among the skeptics.

Dave-

Who would you like to fund climate research If government and industry are both out?

Do we have a bake sale?

By the way, how did the US manage to con the other 129 countries involved in the IPCC to go along with our scam? The Bush administration isn't known for it's diplomatic triumphs.

Dave,

Nice story. Since I got in on the GW debate, you have questioned the scientists behind it and been given thousands of them from the IPCC, NASA, the Pew Center etc. yet made reference to other scientists without provided a single one of them (believe me, I'll read what they have to say with an open mind and I doubt I'll accuse you of appealing to a higher authority) You then questioned their motives based on where their paychecks come from, cherry picked points on graphs without seeing obvious trends, discredited posters for appealing to a higher authority yet tirelessly referencing your own experience as a Managing Engineer with 40 years under the belt, made logical fallacy arguments directed towards others yet make a complete non-sequitar analogy to Churchill/1066 which I can only assume is a terribly lame attempt at humor, argued against alternative energy sources by presenting cradle to grave arguments that conveniently leave out any assignment of value to CO2 emissions or the environment, and bored us to death with stories from the engineering crypt.
Dave, do you have any hobbies?

CM,

I didn't see your debt (to income)ratio question. I'll bet many tens of millions of American's wish they had a debt to income of 79% or less.

Bryan,

The only thing wrong with my knuckles comes from backslapping global warming winnies.:)

If President Bush believes its true and you believe President Bush is an idiot, then ....

Read Monday's WSJ for a rebuttal of the latest tripe from the Intergov'tl Panel on Climate Change or see my post on Jan 30 Swamp on Boy Wonder and Global Warming.

Gore/Obama - never happens - two liberal peas in a pod. Ticket needs diversity in ideas. Remember Liberman.

John D.

Please read my posts - I am not part of kool-aid drinking Global Warming clan.

Read the IPCC report that Tony recommends - drink coffee first. It was written by policy makers, not scientists - their report comes out in a few months.

That IPCC report is written by a bunch of groupthinkers. It's like having an objective report written about the benefits of large gov't by DNC.

You hit thenail on the head "Follow the Money"

Jethro,

Your post at 10:55 makes points about global warming, but leaves out any mention that it is man-made.

Little Johnny is a Journalist?
Excuse me while I laugh...hahahaha...hahaha
ok...I feel better now.

That's almost as funny as the goons from the Republican Party paying scientist's to say that global warming doesn't exsist.

Praise the lord,Fox News and all of that other stuff because the earth is flat and George W. has Jesus on the hotline phone in his office.

Oh Janet and Bill R., the fact is you are both lessening the damage four major hurricanes did to Florida in 2004 to justify your whining over New Orleans and excuse-making for the inability of New Orleans and Louisiana to repair itself. Whether "just some wind damage," or "mostly wind damage," is not relevant. Coastal areas of Florida were still wiped out from tidal surge. Buildings were completely demolished from 100 to 150 mph winds depending on the which of the four hurricanes. And the four hurricanes all targeted different areas of Florida, meaning the damage was much more widespread.

Just admit that that leadership in New Orleans and Louisiani is beyond inept and incapable of taking care of itself. Furthermore, Mississippi, which suffered wind damge and a devastating tidal surge from Katrina that New Orleans did not get, is much farther along in rebuilding than Louisiani can even comprehend.
Clearly, you folks are completely clueless about hurricanes and the damage they cause and clearly have no clue as to how to understand meaning and intent!

" Furthermore, Mississippi, which suffered wind damge and a devastating tidal surge from Katrina that New Orleans did not get, is much farther along in rebuilding than Louisiani can even comprehend."

That is a false statement Johnny D. As has been repeartedly pointed out to you, the rebuilding issues are not limited to New Orleans or Lousiana. Do you ever even try to tell the truth?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/27/AR2007012701154.html?sub=new

"The reason for the charity's dominant role in the rebuilding is that little, if any, of the $3.2 billion in federal aid for Mississippi homeowners has reached anyone here -- it is tied up for now at the state level. "

Oh Tony I always tell the truth. Fact is, Mississippi is still farther along than in New Orleans or Louisiana. Heck, 2.5 years later they are still rebuilding in Florida where those hurricanes hit. Rebuilding doesn't happen in a week or two or even in a few months.
Fact is, Biloxi, which was hit hard, is coming back. In addition, I have never said any community is back after the hurricanes; simply stated and accurately at that that Mississippi is further along than they are in Louisiana.

"Fact is, Mississippi is still farther along than in New Orleans or Louisiana."

Prove it Johnny. Come on, provide some documentation and facts.

Everything I read says the whole region is in the same mess. Towns like Bay St. Louis have hardly begun to rebuild, and as much as you ignore it, there is progress in NOLA.

Terry,

Preliminary reports out of Paris are stating that there is a 90% chance that increased temperatures are a direct result of man-made carbon emissions.

If 9 out of 10 scientists told me that GW is nothing but an hysterical hoax, I doubt I would spend much time formulating dissenting arguments with the ten percenter.

Bubba, well if Paris says temps are higher because of man-made pollutants then IT MUST be true!!! Try passing that info along to Midwesterners who are suffering through the SIXTH COLDEST start to February on record!! Six consecutive days of below zero temperatures in Chicago. Oh yeah, it's WARMING UP!! I better get my swimsuit to swim in Lake Michigan next week!!! I'm sorry, there is ice on the lake because our average temperature in February is 25 degrees BELOW NORMAL!!!

Johnny D, I think you are proving me wrong.

Earlier in this thread I said that there was a cure for your ignorance on climate change. Your arguement that 6 days of weather in Chicago disproves global climate change leads me to believe you may be incurable.

Yes, John D, the entire city of Paris came to that conclusion.
I know it's hard, but try to excercise those journalism skills of yours and pay attention. hint: IPCC
Somebody actually gives you money to pose as a journalist? I can only assume you get paid by some corporate interest to spread disinformation in an effort to protect your industry.

If John D is a "journalist" than I am the King of Siam. The "journalistic integrity" he displays consists of beginning every single post with an insult, in particular a swarmy condescension toward anything a female posts, rarely, if ever, displaying data or links to support his conclusions, and of course there is this inane exchange were he flagrantly misquotes Janet and then goes to the matter over and over again to defend the indefensible. I know we've bene through this before John but why not just be a man and admit that you misquoted her."

"you said Florida just suffered wind damage. While I did not quote you verbatim, the meaning was the same. You still discounted the major damage done throughout Florida because it was "just some wind damage."
Posted by: John D | Feb 7, 2007 2:45:07 PM

"Those areas suffered mostly wind damage. New Orleans was underwater in case you didn't see the footage of people stranded on rooftops. Sorry to bring facts to the equation."
Posted by: Janet | Jan 24, 2007 3:35:20 PM

John D the journalist... oh lord my sides are splitting!!

Sorry, Bubba, I wrote it backwards in my post of yesterday. I should have said that the temperature peaks lead the CO2 peaks by about 800 years.

The trouble with the graph that you linked to is that the horizontal axis is scrunched together so that you can't see that. There's a book, "How to Lie With Statistics." Compressing the axes to hide inconvenient truths is one of the techniques. Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

Here's a link to a paper that I was quoting.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M

I'd posted it before, on another thread. The author, Tim Patterson, is apparently difficult for the global warming folks to assail because he doesn't receive any money from industry. He says "William of Orange," but his point is valid.

And yes, I do have hobbies. I build furniture, and I research my family history. I also read a lot, on a wide variety of subjects. Tie fishing flies, go fishing with my son. Don't watch TV much, though.

Tony, I expect that government and industry will fund climate research, because, as you correctly point out, there is no one else who has the resources. My point is, though, that you have to be careful of the results, and recognize the financial incentives that might drive them. I think you'd agree, at least in the case of research funded by the energy industry!

Now, a challenge, for Bubba, Tony, jethro, C. Morris, and anybody else who wants to take it up. Terry, John D, and I have asked several questions in areas where the conventional global warming wisdom does not appear to explain the observable facts. John D's list above is a good start. How about answering some of them, in your own words, not by saying "go watch a movie" or by linking to a Web site that doesn't have the answers either. Describe, on this blog, your answers to those questions, so that we skeptics will know that you understand the issues and are not just parroting The Gospel According to Al.

Here's a start: How did the IPCC account for the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age? Answer: They ignored them. It's much easier to show a correlation between CO2 and global temperature if you ignore the times when the correlation breaks down.

Dave,

Thanks for the response, I didn't bother with the "lag" mistake, knew what you meant.

I'll catch up with you later, gotta run.

You should visit this area, I live 1/2 hour from Henry's Fork and the South Fork. 1 1/2 hrs from Yellowstone rivers, might be heading there this weekend, a friend of mine slayed 'em last week.

I posed your and John D's Q's to a source but haven't heard back yet. Like you, I do have thoughts of my own on those questions, will respond when I get a chance.

JohnD, if you were about 20 in 1984 I believe you probably could still enlist in the army and kick some serious tail. The Daily Egyptian-was that the Southern Illinois University newspaper?

Hi Dave,

Patterson's article is interesting and I apologize for having missed it the first time around. I usually try to read links when they're posted regardless of who they are from. But I will say that I almost fell out of my seat when he shows the same Vostok graph that I showed and then claims:
"In conclusion, the geologic record clearly shows us that there really is little correlation between CO2 and temperature".
A monkey would see the obvious correlation. But I agree, he might miss the very little bitty ice age and even littler medieval luke warm periods which constitute a swing in temps of 1% celcius from the mean. I would also note his own reference to solar activity as well as themohaline circulation as partial forces behind those periods.
I would also point out that those periods represent less than one half of one percent of the entire sample.
Obviously this is not an exact science and you have to rely on statistical probabilities and the gray areas of standard deviation. Which is why I noted that preliminary results of the recent IPCC meeting that claim there is a 90% probability that man-made CO2 emissions are driving temperatures.
I also wouldn't be too quick to dismiss academics based on where their funding, if any, comes from. I think most people enter those fields to seek truth, contemplate and debate theories, and therefore rely heavily on their own reputations that I doubt such a large group would sacrifice for notoriety, ego or large sums of cash. Call me naive. If we were talking about politicians however......
Oh yeah, this has been there all along and I agree needs much more attention given too it. Recent reports from the IPCC claim the new report addresses it better, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm

I might head to the South Fork this weekend. A guide friend of mine said to slowly strip streamers off the bottom. As a novice fly tier, salt water streamers are my only accomplishments.

Thanks, Bubba, for posting that link. I have to confess that I'd find that chapter, and for that matter the whole IPCC report, persuasive if there weren't so much dissent, even from people who were on the panel. For instance, other investigators have found much more rapid changes between the "Medieval Warm Period" and the "Little Ice Age" than is shown in the report. In the graph that accompanies that section, the whole last millennium is smoothed into a gradually declining temperature (which some could have perceived as a warm first few hundred years and a cooler later 500 years) followed by a sharp upswing that some have dubbed the "hockey stick." The regionality arguments made in the chapter may have some validity; others, though, have argued that the changes were much more global, and much more rapid than shown.

What Patterson was asserting, particularly toward the end of his paper, was that the CO2 changes seem to lag the temperature changes in the Vostok core by about 800 years. (There, got it right this time.) He says that that is characteristic of recovering biological activity after an ice age. Considering that the retreating glaciers left a landscape that was swept clean, I think that is a reasonable statement. The lag oesn't really show in the Wikipedia image that you posted on Feb. 7, because, as I noted above, the horizontal axis is scrunched together.

Also interesting is the periodicity of the changes in the Vostok core. Over a period of 75K-125K years, the earth undergoes temperature changes that result in long ice ages interrupted by short warm periods that crash rapidly into another ice age. The Vostok core graph makes it look as if our current warm period, during which what we think of as civilization has risen on this earth, may be about over. Other geologists have noted that the warm periods are about 10,000 years in length, and that's about how long the current one has been so far. So what's next?

I hope you have good fishing. It sounds as if you have open water in which to fish. Here in the Chicago area, it's been cold, which some bozos have seized upon as a disproof of global warming (I wish!) and things are mostly frozen over, but not so much so that this Maine boy would dare to go ice fishing. Been through the ice once, and that's enough.

So the draft Al Gore movement is nothing?:)

If so, how come I was interviewed by NPR this morning for Saturday's "All Things Considered"?

Gore reminds us all after 6 years of Neo-Conservativist rule of what could have been! It is time we set things right and get the man to run.