Sunday Funnies: Al Gore Says 'Global Warming Has Fried My Brain'

Sunday Funnies: Al Gore Says 'Global Warming Has Fried My Brain' Photo of Noel Sheppard. By Noel Sheppard | May 11, 2008 - 10:12 ET

For several years since Nobel Laureate Al Gore started his campaign to frighten people into thinking they're destroying the planet every time they drive their cars, climate realists around the world have wondered just how much of the global warming myth the former Vice President actually believes.

Syndicated columnist Jay Ambrose, in a satirical piece entitled "A Gore Confession" published Sunday, suggests what the real culprit might be: the warming has fried Gore's brain.

Al Gore today said his irresponsible lies blaming global warming for every catastrophe to occur on Earth in the past few years were themselves a consequence of global warming, and warned that if we don't want more people like him mouthing off, we had better cut back soon on carbon emissions.

"The warming has fried my brain," Gore said, adding that he had totally lost control of his tongue, which wags mendaciously at every opportunity.

"Why, not so long ago, I was arguing in my Oscar-winning movie that we would have oceans rising 20 feet within the very near future, only I failed to explain what I meant by 'very near future.' I meant within a couple of thousand years. I should have modified the phrase better. [...]

"But listen," he said, his eyes narrowing and a look of sincere smugness crossing his face, "none of this means I am wrong on the big issue, which is that greenhouse gases are causing everything to become unbelievably hot. Our only hope is to cut back on energy usage per capita to a level about like we had a couple of centuries ago. If we don't do this, at some tiny sacrifice in the way of giving up most of what we call modernity and some millions starving here and there, you will have more people like me. You will have people whose brains have been cooked and whose capacity for a realistic, honest sense of balance has been utterly destroyed.

"You will have people refusing to admit that what's actually happening doesn't fit their assumptions and engaging in ad hominem attacks on any scientist with differing explanations from their own. You will have people predicting sweeping illnesses, famine and more and calling for solutions that will give us sweeping illnesses, famine and more, much as ethanol is now causing hunger in the world. So get with it, do you hear me? Good heavens, get with it!"

Here my report ends, and with it a confession for anyone who didn't catch on: I made up the Gore confession. His global alarmism made me do it.

—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

"The above chart shows the range of global temperature through the last 500 million years. There is no statistical correlation between the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through the last 500 million years and the temperature record in this interval. In fact, one of the highest levels of carbon dioxide concentration occurred during a major ice age that occurred about 450 million years ago. Carbon dioxide concentrations at that time were about 15 times higher than at present.":
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M

The graph above represents temperature and CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. It is the same exact data Al Gore and the rest of the man-made global warmers refer to. The blue line is temps, the red CO2 levels. The deep valleys represent 4 separate glaciation periods. Now look very carefully at this relationship between temps and CO2 levels and keep in mind that Gore claims this data is the 'proof' that CO2 has warmed the earth in the past. But does the graph indeed show this? Nope. In fact, rising CO2 levels all throughout this 400,000 year period actually lagged behind temperature increases --and by an average of 800 years! So it couldn't have been CO2 that got Earth out of these 4 past ice ages. Yet Gore dishonestly and continually says otherwise. I think he uses the graph in his sci-fi flick as well.(?)

FWD:

So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, 'Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,' Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other 'minor greenhouse gases.' As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ ______________________________________________

FWD:

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html ______________________________________________

Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah blah blah. Bring out all the charts you want, point is, I'm about 15 lbs over weight and warmth (defined as anything over 75 degrees) makes me uncomfortable. So, rather than buckle down and loose the weight, I'd rather just make you completely change your lifestyle and destroy your industries through draconian legislation that won't work and anyway, even if it did, it'd have no effect on global temperatures anyway, because if, IF, there is global warming, it's the sun's fault.

Owl_Eagle

”You know, I'm going to start thanking
the woman who cleans the restroom in
the building I work in. I'm going to start
thinking of her as a human being”

-Hillary Clinton

(Yes, she really said that

Peggy Noonan

The Case Against Hillary Clinton, pg 55)

IF, there is global warming, it's the sun's fault.

And here's the most likely mechanism (according to many solar scientists)

If you look at the chart below, you will see that sunspot activity (during solar maxes--the individual peaks) has been relatively high since about 1900 and almost non-existent for the period between about 1625 and 1725. This period is known as the Maunder (sunspot) Minimum or "Little Ice Age".

From BBC News [yr: 2004]:
"A new [2004] analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years. Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past. They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer."..."In particular, it has been noted that between about 1645 and 1715, few sunspots were seen on the Sun's surface. This period is called the Maunder Minimum after the English astronomer who studied it. Ice core disc, Epica Ice cores record climate trends back beyond human measurements It coincided with a spell of prolonged cold weather often referred to as the "Little Ice Age". Solar scientists strongly suspect there is a link between the two events - but the exact mechanism remains elusive."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm

It's really hard to imagine how this little ball of fire could have any impact on our climate at all.

But the main arguments being made for a solar-climate connection is not so much to do with the heat of the Sun but rather with its magnetic cycles. When the Sun is more magnetically active (typically around the peak of the 11 year sunspot cycle --we are a few yrs away at the moment), the Sun's magnetic field is better able to deflect away incoming galactic cosmic rays (highly energetic charged particles coming from outside the solar system). The GCRs are thought to help in the formation of low-level cumulus clouds -the type of clouds that BLOCK sunlight and help cool the Earth. So when the Sun's MF is acting up (not like now), less GCRs reach the Earth's atmosphere, less low level sunlight-blocking clouds form, and more sunlight gets through to warm the Earth's surface...naturally. Clouds are basically made up of tiny water droplets. When dust particles in the atmosphere become ionized by incoming GCRs they become very 'attractive' to water molecules, in a purely chemical sense of the word.-Eye On The Left

____________________________________________________

2008: "The Center for Sun-Climate Research at the DNSC investigates the connection between variations in the intensity of cosmic rays and climatic changes on Earth. This field of research has been given the name 'cosmoclimatology'"..."Cosmic ray intensities – and therefore cloudiness – keep changing because the Sun's magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy, before they can reach the Earth." :
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.