Al Gore mistaken on Polar Ice Cap science

Former Vice President Al Gore stuck his foot in his mouth while speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit when he claimed that, "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years." Interesting but not so quick as the scientist that Gore quoted denied giving concrete numbers to which later Gore's office admitted that the figure was "one used by Dr. Maslowski as a 'ballpark figure' several years ago in a conversation with Gore" (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece). Interesting error in science indeed, especially in light of those hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.

While I do acknowledge that the climate warms and cools, I do not subscribe that it is as manmade that most on the left would like us all to believe. As I am writing this, Andrea Mitchell had Gary Hart and a former General on to discuss how climate change is a national security threat. The Left is losing the battle and has not gone to the bag of tricks that Bush used, i.e. WMD's, to push the climate change agenda. Let's all be honest, what is playing out in Copenhagen is not about being good stewards of the Earth; rather it is about plundering the coffers of the Industrialized World by Third World and developing countries. The EU has announced that it will give 500 million euro's to Africa and the Caribbean (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE5BE1BI._CH_.2420) and the United States upped their ante that will be set at $9 billion for 2010. By the way it was President Bush that led to the tripling of "direct humanitarian and development aid" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.html).

That being said, it is time that we take a time out and look at the science of climate change. A friend of mine posted this webpage on my Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedaily.com%2Freleases%2F2009%2F11%2F091124140957.htm&h=a0758a2cd40ea99ae8b12077acd89c03 After reading the article I posed this question: Park says that "a strong correlations exists between sea-surface temperature and CO2 levels in the tropic areas. Conversely, in places with a lot of trees and other biomass to soak up much of the atmospheric CO2..." Wouldn't that lead us to believe that deforestation and the lack of biomass – will need a definition on that – is the root cause of the "inerannual time scales" that results in less CO2 absorption? So, shouldn't the push be for more forests and biomass instead of "Cap and Trade" legislation? Or did I read what he said incorrectly? It appears to me that Park is applying correlations found in tropical oceans to all waterways which does not equate when he says "in places with a lot of trees and other biomass" the oceans are able to absorb access CO2. Can't have it both ways…"

I have not seen an answer to this question. Perhaps someone here will help me understand or correct me if I am miss-understanding Parks report. All of this is why we need to have a robust debate void of emotion and political influence. Is that even possible? Plus, if Gore was told of the prediction by Dr. Maslowski took place several years ago, wouldn't that mean that we will see no polar ice cap in the next one or two years?

Climate Change: Manmade or Mother Nature??

Today marks the start of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. In recent weeks news has come out about the reporting being done by those who tout that Carbon Dioxide is pushing Earth to the breaking point. Hackers exposed a mass amount of emails from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that lead speculation and challenged the creditability of the data being reported. Since that time Phil Jones has stepped down from his leadership role at the lab but will remain on staff to continue research. In a statement Jones said, "What is most important is that [Climate Research Lab] continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible. After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the Director's role during the course of the independent review." Just a side note, I attempted to link to the statement but it has been taken off the website where it was originally posted.

I recall from my elementary education that plants need Carbon Dioxide to survive and the biggest producer of Carbon Dioxide; you and I. Human beings by their very nature contribute more to the levels of Carbon Dioxide than any coal plant, SUV or other manufacturing plants. It has been interesting since the hacking of documents that our major news outlets have done nothing to investigate the emails; rather they are busy reporting on Tiger Woods. Why is this? UN Environment Program Director Achim Steiner lays claim to the hacked material is, "not climategate, its hackersgate. Let's not forget the word 'gate' refers to a place where data was stolen by people who were paid to do so. So the media should direct its investigations into that" (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/climate-email-theft-likened-to-watergate-break-in/story-e6frg6xf-1225807887910).

Why hasn't there been a debate on the science surrounding the issue of manmade climate change? When Al Gore speaks he does not take questions very often and the media is not allowed in either. Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, lost a huge court case in the United Kingdom earlier this year due to a number of inaccurate claims made by the movie. Researchers at the University of Minnesota-Morris and Wisconsin found that aspen trees are responding positively due to the excess Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. "What this means is our beloved forests are recognizing change. There was a 'what if' question that frequented the study…Its results concluded that aspen responded well to carbon dioxide, which is fascinating," said Rick Lindroth about the research he co-authored (http://www.mndaily.com/2009/12/06/trees-benefit-carbon-dioxide).

While no one will argue that air quality is important and combating smog in our major cities is needed. The trouble is the debate is not being done on the science for the most part; rather it is being debated on emotion. When the science is used by those pushing the notion of "manmade" climate change, it appears they may have cooked the books or the data. But we may never really know because very few people are asking the tough questions or investigating the data manipulation taking place. How do we discuss climate change going forward? President Obama has delayed his trip to Copenhagen until later in the conference when nearly all other world leaders will be there. Why will Al Gore, or others like him, debate those that do not buy in to the "manmade" angle to climate change?

Global Warming Real?

Now I have heard it all when it comes to the Global Warming debate. The Swedes are putting labels on food that will indicate the carbon dioxide levels the product required to be produced. Are we serious? The Global Warming debate is baseless as those that argue for Global Warming lack scientific proof. I recall from the 80's that the big push was that the ozone layer was a big problem and deforesting of South America was going to be the end of the world. I also recall from science class that plants eat our carbon dioxide in order to grow. So, why then are we arguing about global warming and when did carbon dioxide become this evil gas?

Governments all around the world are looking at Global Warming as the baseline to expand the powers of the United Nations. Al Gore has pushed his "Inconvenient Truth" to the determent of all. Why does Al Gore not debate those that have debunked the Global Warming myth? A former policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher has been for sometime been breaking down the myth that Al Gore created around Global Warming. Lord Richard Monckton has been more visible as of late and recently presented his work at Bethel University. See his closing comments here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40

It is time that we debate this topic on the merits of science and not on a perceived, well funded belief that carbon dioxide is the enemy to human survival. Let's allow the science to speak and set aside the rhetoric before Congress passes Cap and Trade bill.

Media Double Standard; Gore vs. Cheney

Since leaving office Vice President Al Gore has been at the forefront of Global Warming debate. Although Vice President Gore tends to duck real debates on the topic, Vice President Dick Cheney is challenging the current administration on the CIA memos. Why is it that the media is demonizing Vice President Cheney while they have a lovefest with Vice President Gore?

The media, for a large part, has driven the liberal agenda while ignoring the facts of the day. A double standard is firmly established by the media when dealing with issues of conservative or liberal. Put aside the argument of defining torture; let’s demand that all the CIA memos be released to end the debate. President Obama has already made the decision that harsh tactics used are defined as torture and is willing to move forward with prosecution of those that wrote the legal opinions.

Investigative journalism, as I stated yesterday, is dead in America. Americans deserve to know the truth and not pieces of the truth. It is time to remove the double standard and report the truth. To end the debate on the CIA memos is easily done by releasing all the memos surrounding the issue. If people are tired of hearing Vice President Cheney then demand President Obama release all CIA memos that are the topic.

At the same time, it is time for a national debate to take place. It is time for Vice President Gore to debate one-on-one with John Christy.