http://www.palisad.com/co2/eb/eb.html

Comments are always welcome (see the ‘co2 at’ email address in the report).

George White

http://www.energypulse.net/ centers/ article/ article_display.cfm?a_id=2035

Why the scam; follow the money! Did you know the Generation Management Investment LLC firm Gore and his buddies founded in 2004 to fund only green technologies in 2008 had $5 billion in investments.

Doesn’t take a rocket science for this one!

REVISITING MAGNETIC INTENSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE: A STRONG CORRELATION
Moran, E. H.; Tindall, J. A.
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2008, abstract #GP11A-0709

Relations between Earth’s magnetic intensity and climatic temperatures were suggested and investigated during the 1970’s and early 1980’s. The strong statistical correlation was dismissed owing to no explanation for the process. However, research shows that the intensity of a material’s magnetic field changes as the material’s temperature changes, thus suggesting that the Earth’s core temperature varies. Additional and more complete global-scale datasets and advanced analytical techniques indicate that global and, to a lesser degree, continental average annual temperatures respond significantly to secular variations of core- generated magnetic intensity. Simple polynomial-regression techniques show that globally-averaged secular variations predict and explain 79-percent of the variability in global average-annual temperatures 7-years in the future; thus suggesting another or additional process contributing to climate change.

Thank You

That is so sad.

On the other hand, I was disappointed that you joined him, at least on one occasion, in the absurd statement department. You threw out the dubious “statistic” that “there are more people now working in the wind energy industry than in coal mining.” That is the type of statement that is so obviously skewed and misleading that IMO it undermines the credibility of whatever else you might say. It’s not as bad as Morano’s racism remark, but still it made me cringe. To elaborate very briefly for those who don’t get it, you’re referring to a very broad definition of “the wind industry” and comparing it only to “miners,” a narrow subset of those in the coal industry. But the impact of the statement is to let a casual listener think the comparison is of the two “industries.” Obviously, the coal industry is an order of magnitude larger than the wind power industry — anyone with half a brain recognizes that. But so what? That should be neither here nor there in a debate on making a cleaner, greener world. Wind power is in its infancy, and that’s sort of the point of spending more money on it.

In any case, I’d recommend you and others stay away from that misleading statistic because you’ll get called on it and look as bad as those on the other side. The message will get lost or watered down. Embrace the fact that these technologies are still growing and only going to get bigger and better.

[JR: Not worried about being "called on it" since I'm not comparing the "industries." Miners are iconic, but a far smaller than people realize. Wind is already much bigger than people realize. That is the point of that comparison. But the real comparison is between coal and alternatives to coal, not just wind. Working on that one.]

Queer.

I am big advocate of the Scientific Method because I don’t have to just take someone else’s word when using it. Instead of admitting that your position CANNOT be verified, many of you demonize the poor stupid unbelievers.

I didn’t simply accept Christianity when the stakes were my soul, and I will not accept AGW when the stake is some of my freedoms and much of my money.

[JR: Here you betray your true, anti-scientific views. The scientific literature is out there for anybody to read. Their is no analogy to accepting religion. Find somewhere else to post.]