Global Warming - RushOnline.com
Historical Data
Help me!!!
I am a physicist and officer in the US Navy, I am watching what is
going on with the current so called Global warming debate. It is my
belief that Socialism and Communism has taken up refuge in the world
environmental movement. Like many Americans I used to think there
was something to Global warming. Since I have actually studied the
subject and grown up from being an intellectually immature high school
student, I now know there is no quality evidence to support global
warming theories and furthermore, that if there were that human actions
had anything to do with temporally localized temperature fluctuations.
What can I do as an Individual to educate people about these lies
and to stop this movement? I believe that this is one of the greatest
threat topolitical and economic freedom of recent times. I know that
this is something that must be stopped.
Who should I Call? ETC....
* * *
Global Warming Farce
Thought you might be amused by the letter I sent to my Senators and
Reps.......
Dear Representative Hoyer:
I am writing to you regarding the recent onslaught of publicity surrounding
the ëglobal treaty', greenhouse gasses and the subject of global
warming in general. Personally, I'm quite tired of pseudo-scientist
enviro-zealots going completely overboard on a subject which has no
scientific relevance at all - their assumptions regarding the theory
of global warming do not remotely resemble science, whatsoever.
I've read a great deal on the subject of global warming in the past
few years. In fact, I started out with a very open mind on the subject,
but quickly realized that this ëtheory' was nothing more than
an absurd myth. It is absolutely incredible that an argument still
exists on the subject - obviously it provides a great deal of job
security for thousands of individuals. I'm certain that it would be
much cheaper to place these well meaning dolts on unemployment rather
than continue this ludicrous investigation.
While I acknowledge that ground level temperatures on earth have
risen about 1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past hundred and forty years,
I also realize that cities have sprung up and grown dramatically in
that same period. What materials are these cities comprised? Let's
see....trillions and trillions of tons of brick, mortar, stone, block,
tar, concrete, asphalt, etc.
I do have a degree in mechanical engineering and I passed my heat
transfer requirement with flying colors.....but I really don't need
those credentials to understand that these cities are massive ëheat
sinks' which have grown at an amazing rate over this period of time.
I can watch the weather report every night and see that the temperatures
in Baltimore and Washington, DC are often 4 - 7 degrees warmer than
they are at my farm in Walkersville, MD. I often see differences as
much as 10 degrees (or more) at night, when these massive heat sinks
are dissipating the heat that they collected all day.
It's truly amazing that most global warming fanatics are too obtuse
to realize this phenomenon, especially when they preach that the most
noticeable increases in temperature are at night. There is one other
crucial tidbit of information that supports the idea that warming
is a ground level phenomenon caused by urban sprawl - we've used satellite
data for approximately twenty years to study atmospheric temperatures....and
they have shown a slight decrease in global temperatures....remarkable,
isn't it?
I've enclosed two charts which were provided in a recent Washington
Post article - it is readily apparent that temperature fluctuations
on this planet are a very normal occurrence....without our influence.
Scientists (and pseudo scientists) are looking at data from the last
140 years - this is merely a blip in time and many individuals are
jumping to ridiculous conclusions, including a couple of well known
individuals located on Pennsylvania Avenue.
There is little doubt that in three hundred years we will look back
at this atrocious episode in the same manner that we currently view
the Salem witch trials of the 1600's. The fallacy of global warming
is driven by a mob mentality, which lacks any semblance of scientific
evidence - in fact, the scientific evidence that exists completely
undermines this stupid theory. The arguments of the global warming
faction are mind boggling - as each of their predictions fails to
materialize, they are only momentarily swayed and revise their predictions
accordingly. They are also great manipulators of the news of natural
events after they occur. The zealots point at normal events and declare
that most of these occurrences are obviously the result of global
warming - warm weather, cold weather, hurricanes, hail, flooding,
high tide, low tide, turbulent weather, calm weather, the sun rising
in the east, the sun setting in the west, inflation, death and taxes
- you name it, global warming is the culprit. Ironically, while these
zealots are dying to tell everyone ëI told you so', they are
continually stymied by bad predictions and repeatedly rely upon the
occurrence of normal events to prove their counterfeit theory.
Meanwhile, the press has promulgated the myth since apocalypse makes
compelling news, while evidence disproving global warming results
in a very slow news day. The nay-sayers are automatically shunned
and branded as conspirators siding with the evil oil empire. I can
honestly say that the only kick-back I receive from the oil industry
is 6 cents a gallon at the gas pump on Thrifty Thursdays.
In conclusion, I'd like to make one very important point. I'm very
pro-environmentÖ.but I'm also anti-stupidity. Global warming
is a very stupid non-scientific myth. It's time for someone to stand
up and say, "the King has no clothes." No, wait a minute,
who are we kidding here? It's time for someone to stand up and say,
"the King has no clothesÖ.and he's quite ugly too."
Let's stop funding $2.1 billion annually on a fairy tale, and for
God's sake, do not legislate the eradication, reduction, moderation,
elimination, termination, dissolution, or regulation of anything based
on something THAT DOES NOT EXIST!
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Steve Voter/taxpayer/concerned citizen
* * *
I am sending you this e-mail to provide some data on "global
warming" that may help support your position. I am an aerospace
engineer and have spent a number of years working on NASA's Mission
to Planet Earth (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/mtpe/). I have attended
presentations given by the project's chief scientist where he presented
the data that shows "global warming." This is the same basic
data used by the "White House" to support their position.
Out of all the data I saw, the only thing that may have any real impact
on the Earth's atmosphere is a steady increase in carbon dioxide since
the industrial revolution. This is based on analysis of ice cores
taken from the Earth's polar regions. I will address this point later.
I followed the example set by the all-knowing, all-caring Majah Rushie
when he explained the error of Representative Lewis' slave trade statistics.
I must confess to having failed the Million Math lessons I got from
one of your advertisers, so I am forced to do math the old fashion
way. I contacted their help number and when their tutors showed up
and found out I was not Afro-American, they beat me up and said I
wouldn't understand because it was a "black thang." Anyway
here is the analysis:
The Earth's radius at the poles is 3961 miles - the radius at the
equator is smaller because the planet is not a perfect sphere. To
keep things simple and conservative I am using the larger number.
The volume of a sphere is determined by the formula V=1.3333 x 3.1416
(pi) x radius3.
The transition from atmosphere to space occurs at about 100,000 feet.
Dividing 100,000 by 5,280 feet per mile I get an average atmospheric
height of 19 miles with rounding and again being conservative.
So if I find the volume of the Earth plus atmosphere and subtract
the Earthís volume I will have the volume of the atmosphere
- here are the numbers:
Earth radius + atmosphere height = 3,961 + 19 = 3,980
Total volume = 1.3333 x 3.1416 x 39803 = 6.3404 x 1011 cubic miles
- Earth volume = 1.3333 x 3.1416 x 39613 = 6.2146 x 1011 cubic miles
Atmosphere volume = 3.77 x 109 cubic miles or 3,770,000,000 cubic
miles
I selected 100 cubic yards (100 football fields high by 100 football
fields wide by 100 football fields deep) as a volume of any specific
gas (carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, CFCs, etc.) to be added to the
atmosphere per day for 50 years. This is purely an arbitrary selection.
I then computed the percentage of atmospheric change for any gas chosen.
Here are the numbers:
5,280 feet per mile / 3 = 1,760 yards per mile
1 cubic mile = 1,7603 = 5,451,776,000 cubic yards
50 x 365 + 12.5 (leap year adjustment) = 18,262.5 new gas volumes
added to the atmosphere over 50 years.
* * *
Check out www.nhes.com for lots of ammo against the Global Warming
myth and a SCIENTIFIC view that says... yes, the Earth is warmer now,
but it's supposed to be, and predictions of a run away greenhouse
effect is just wrong...
Ignorance of SCIENCE and actual DATA can't be tolerated...
-Mike
* * *
"Remember the Ice Age!"
If not for global warming, that's where we'd be right now...
* * *
Global Warming
I don't know much about the global warming subject but even though
the world isn't frying now, with all of this pollution, it will cause
the greenhouse effect and someday, the world will fry.........But
who cares?
We can just pollute the earth more producing space ships to fly to
Mars to live.....So would you rather be a martian or stay on earth
and take care of it? You choose.
* * *
Global Warming Article
In the Sunday, Nov 30 edition, of the Register newspaper of Orange
County, California, there is an article titled "Can we cool it?,"
by physics professor, Gregory Benford of UC, Irvine. He proposes some
very simple straight forward solutions, such as planting more trees,
dumping iron into the oceans to stimulate the growth of plankton,
making our rooftops, parking lots, etc. more reflective. Unfortunately,
one doubts if these simple and relatively inexpensive solutions will
be considered because the would limit the amount of control the politicos
could obtain compared with the measures they seem to have in mind.
Thank you.
Gray
* * *
Global Warming
The only global warming that we have in this country is the hot air
coming from Gore's mouth.
* * *
No Change in Sea Level---
Basic physics.
Every year the arctic ice pack breaks up. Why no change in sea level?
Floating ice displaces the same amount of water as melted ice. Any
changes have to come from glaciers, Antartica, etc.
Jim
* * *
Environmentalism - The Last Bastion of Communism!
In the name of the environment, the government can usurp your private
property rights, without remuneration for loss of value, e.g. designated
wet lands. If you own land that has a designated wet land on it, the
value is gone, since it no longer can be used for anything. It may
even become a liability. When these designations are done, it essentially
is in violation of the undue "search & seizure" clause
in the constitution.
Sounds like communism to me Rush!!
* * *
I am a teen that has done extensive research on the global warming
topic, since the 97-98 debate topic this year requires it. I am amazed
by the ignorance of many of the respondents to global warming. It
is obvious that the only authors they have read are the ones noted
for being bias. Such as: Michaels, Lindez, Balling, Bailey, Idso,
and Moore to name a few. They are completely neglecting the data collected
by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change); it consists
of the worlds top 2500 climatologists.
They have used not only observational data, but satellites as well.
In reference to the attack that the increase of temperatures is do
to the increase of things like concrete and asphalt--this is completely
absurb.
This in the science field is referred to as the Urban Heat Island
effect which doesn't take in to account satellites or ice core samples
which show an increase in tempures of a couple degrees celcius over
the past hundred years. Now although a couple of degrees celcius doesn't
sound like much, it makes a horrific impact on the world. We see around
the world the vast increase in floods which is due to the earths warming--we
also see the increase of famine which is due to too much carbon dioxide
in the air.
There are many other harms contributed to the earth's warming.
Now, it is obvious that the vast increase in the earth's temperature
is due to the industrial age, but not because of the increase in concrete,
etc., but because of the increase of carbon dioxide.
In conclusion, if your readers are going to make assumptions about
the facts of global warming because they read a book, they should
realize that the global warming debate is much bigger than that, and
should read a variety of sources. I myself as a sixteen year old have
read more books on the subject than I care to count making sure to
note the differing sides, and assessing my own opinion of what is
true, unlike the ignorant people responding who take the opinion of
the one of two books they have read on the topic. If anyone would
like to learn more about the topic, I would be happy to give them
a list of sites to check out. elittlebit@hotmail.com.
Thank you for taking the time to read.
Elizabeth
* * *
Please folks, get it right for once!
The enviro nazis are the ones that either
1. Do the damage ie drive cars and cause gases, and thus cause the
glasshouse effect.
2. Or stop people like me from saying so.
Hence please stop "blaming the Victim". an old nazi trick
also !
I doubt 1940 nazis would have been as selfish and one eyed as those
hogging the media today!
Brian at http://www.apoem.com New Zealand breeds clear thinkers......
* * *
The Obscene Politics of Junk Science
The Hypothesis: Aerosol propellants and air conditioning refrigerants
destroy ozone in the earth's atmosphere.
The Experiment: Reactionary governments severely restrict the use
of the suspect gasses, completely disregarding the staggering cost
to industry and society. (The 1987 Montreal Protocol and the 1990
agreement of 61 nations calling for the total phase-out of all chlorofluorocarbons
by the year 2000)
The Findings: The "ozone hole" is significantly larger
today than at any other time in recorded history. (As reported in
October 1997 by Japanese scientists studying the phenomenon.)
The Inescapable Conclusion: More than ten years of greatly reduced
introduction of the compounds into the environment resulted in the
expansion of the "ozone hole" so, therefor, the previous
unrestricted use of the targeted substances could not have been impacting
ozone levels in the atmosphere, unless such impact was to actually
inhibit the growth of the "hole".
Hey ... so much for that hypothesis, huh?
But that's the real beauty of scientific exploration: there is as
much value in disproving a theory as there is in substantiating it.
The down side, however, is that all too often widely publicized newborn
postulates take on a life of their own and become "fact"
long before empirical evidence is available to support or refute them.
As runaway suppositions go, the spectral threat of global warming
has got to be the Granddaddy of them all. Based only upon a highly
subjective and fluid computer model constructed solely of unproved
and insupportable data ("junk science"), the world has once
more been thrust into an environmental "crisis" without
even a shred of scientific proof.
But one must hearken to the clamorous doom-cries of the frenzied
environmentalists, and the profligate politicians who so shamelessly
echo them, to grasp the real crisis we face. The grossly premature
and absolutely baseless call to arms in the battle against "greenhouse
gasses" is not being sounded in laboratories and research centers,
but rather in city council chambers, state legislatures and, most
frightening of all, the White House. Deftly exploiting the phantom
crisis, predatory liberal politicians have again taken control of
the postulate process and proclaimed "global warming" to
be a fact ... just as they did with the now debunked ozone theories.
Only time and true science can provide us the evidence we need to
prove if climate changes are actually taking place and what, if anything,
humans can do about it. In the meanwhile, let's try to refrain from
shattering lives, eliminating jobs and bankrupting businesses in the
hasty quest to again find arbitrary solutions to yet another undefined
problem.
* * *
Global Warming
It seems that science is no longer science. A few years ago I met
a man who works for NOAA and asked him about global warming. His doctorate
is in oceanography and he is familiar with the research and results,
having been actively involved with it. This conversation took place
when media coverage was starting and building to the erroneous conclusions
that continue. He rolled his eyes and went on to explain the many
faults in the "scientific" data which supported the claim
(including flaws in the data collection, how it was analyzed, and
various statistical references which were way beyond me). He had been
responsible for collecting some of these measurements and was acutely
aware of their shortcomings.
At the time, I believed that once these facts were revealed the scientific
community would stand behind them and that the hoopla would die away.
Wrong. My friend, who has represented the US and made presentations
at international conferences, is experiencing the consequences of
"wrongthink." A journal to which he recently sent a manuscript
for publication rejected it outright, without even sending it for
peer review. He has had ongoing problems acquiring funding and the
situation he is describes at work reminds me of the practice of "shunning"
in some religious sects. I am withholding his name and location as
this is being written without his knowledge. It seems that funding
may indeed be the issue. If one does not agree with the "correct"
stand, even when it cannot be supported, one cannot easily obtain
research money. Galileo, move over.
Karen out West.
* * *
Global Warming
Yes. Let me explain a few things about the chemistry of the atmosphere.There
are two types of oxygen up there.O2 and 03.O2 is the result of CO2
bonding with 03.02 is what keeps the earth warm.and it takes 40 YEARS
for CO2 and other cfcs to make its way up into the atmosphere, so
the result of co2 and cfc pollution in the 50s is what we are expercining.cfc
and co2 emissions was highest in the 60s and 70s, so in about 20 yrs
we all wish we didn't defeat legislation, to make co2 emissions illegal.If
this is the age of science, why can't we find new power scources?
That's why we need Gore as president- change.
Bobby
* * *
Global Warming ?
Why aren't the countries that have the most active volcanos being
sighted for the pollution just one volcano belchs into the atmosphere?
More green house gas polutents go up from one eruption than man can
cause in 100 years !
Oh , here's an add-on, the Valdez accident ! What was spilled ? crude
oil ! Something made and taken from nature !
Paul of Texas
* * *
False Science - The Emissions Debate
There are some simple principles of combustion that the EPA and environmental
legislators chose to ignore. First, let's look at the agenda:
1. The EPA has mandated standards for NOx (oxides of nitrogen) reductions.
2. The EPA has mandated standards for unburned hydrocarbon emissions
reductions.
3. President Clinton has also called for CO2 (carbon dioxide) reductions.
To respond:
1. The production of NOx is proportional to peak combustion temperature.
The higher the temperature, the greater production of NOx. Problem
is, when combustion temperature is lowered, it is done so by reducing
the amount of air. Combustion efficiency suffers. The result?
2. Unburned hydrocarbon and particulate emissions increase. Even
with such controls on power plants such as multi-stage burners, technology
has not yet found a way to reduce NOx limits to EPA standards without
sacrificing combustion efficiency. Hence wasted fuel, wasted energy,
and increases in unburned hydrocarbons.
3. The more efficient combustion, the more CO2 is produced. (Carbon
Monoxide decreases). Hence, to reduce CO2, we must encourage energy
producers to waste fuel and burn less efficiently.
So what's it going to be, EPA? Pull your head out of a dark place.
Ah, the politics of environment. This has given us oxygenated gasoline
- at a minimum loss of three percent fuel economy - and unhealthful
aldehyde emissions. In fact, many health studies are being conducted
that point to oxygenated fuels as being highly suspect in terms of
increased lung disease in areas where oxygenated fuels have been mandated
(surf the net on this one).
Be aware of the fact that the state of California has proposed standards
that would eliminate the use of outboard motors on state waterways
and lakes that provide drinking water. Why? The release of toxic methanol
from the combustion of MTBE laced gasoline is poisoning state waters,
representing a severe health threat. This is the same state (California
Air Resources Board) that based on bad science, mandated the use of
oxygenated fuels in the first place.
Unfortunately, ignorance on these issues is rampant! Environmental
zealots have so many so scared to death that reason and good science
have essentially disappeared. Fear of loss, however, has always been
the most effective sales tool available - a great fund raiser, to
be sure. But let's keep the faith, people. Don't let these muddled
thinking idiots poison our intellectual environment! God willing,
reason and clear thinking will prevail!
PRIKING
* * *
Ozone Levels....
Just recently the CDC in Atlanta was issuing warnings for the Smoky
Mountain National Park area for higher than normal concentrations
of Ozone in the air. They cautioned that anyone with respiratory problems
ahould leave the area. A few days later the same caution was issued
again for the Raleigh-Durham area of NC. What puzzles me is that the
same mechanics who are releasing CFC's from Auto Air Conditioning
service in the Smoky Mountains (a National Park?) had to run like
bandits in order to get to Raleigh to continue their vendetta of pollution
in the same week!
Bob - Franklin, NC
* * *
There can be no doubt that the world, with or without human beings,
has gone through many climatic changes through the eons. There is
also no doubt that some of those changes were devastating to life
in general, including whatever human population there was when they
occurred. Additionally, there can be no doubt that we humans have
been the cause of some pretty bad ecological events, and on occasion,
have reversed our negative impacts in some areas. Look at Lake Erie.
Global warming could very well be a natural occurrence, and we could
be moving steadily toward it regardless of our current actions or
levels of real awareness, and we might possibly be contributing to
its eventual intensity by our actions.
Regardless of whether the global warming trend we are seeing is of
our own making or not, its potential to wreak havoc on the planet,
including human beings, is not deniable. Yet, here we are, embroiled
in fruitless and endless debates whose only result is to further polarize
us in our, as of yet, unproveable positions. This is utter stupidity.
If we were truly intelligent beings we would recognize that, regardless
of the source, the potential for devastating global warming is real.
The question, then, is what can we do to control it? The answer is
far more simple than those that have been proposed so far. We need
to put a band-aid on the hurt. We'll figure out what really caused
the hurt later, but for now, let's stop the bleeding and treat the
wound, or in the case of global warming, let's be prepared to do this
when and if it becomes reality. We can, you know. It won't be that
hard, and it might even be fun.
Being a student of Newt's teachings combined with Dr. Deming's, Covey's
and others has given me the ability to approach things differently
than most people who haven't studied what these gifted people would
theach them. "Do first things first." That is one of Dr.
Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Successful People, and it works so very
well. Think about it.
Donnie
* * *
Jim's comments about ice in the global warming section are not quite
on key. The truth is that water in any form has the highest density
at 40F. That means the ice is less dense than water and although displaces
the same amount of water as it contains (when it is floating--shipbuilding
101) it takes up much more volume. The truth is that ice melting from
the polar ice caps would cause the sea level to drop (the liquid water
will take up less room in a constant container than the ice which
is less dense)
Listen all, word games aside, God put mankind in charge of the garden,
I don't thing he'll let us screw it up. Besides there are (so i hear
from the forestry industry) as much as 4 times as much healthy forest
area in North America now as there was 150 years ago. Huh? But aren't
we killing mommy earth?
Ken in Montana, the really last best place
* * *
Super Ditto's from Ohio
The "Environmental Wacko's" have the opportunity of a lifetime!!
With oil demand so high, and production rates low, and with prices
at a high level......this is the time the Environmentals have been
waiting for!
Their cause is to prevent pollution by stopping domestic oil exploration;
but that means someone else will drill for oil (profits). So someone
else will pollute the earth. Doesn't any pollution affect the whole
world?? Therefore, they can oversee good practices of oil companies,
here in the USA where they have a voice; verus in a 3rd world country
and have no voice!
This would limit US dependence on foreign oil, protect the world's
environment, and develop methods of "safe" exploration of
earth minerals for use. A chance of a lifetime for them. Then with
the extra profits of the US, and freeing up technology to develop
alternative sources of energy. a WIN - WIN for all.
Maybe with a plan like this......even Al Gore might want to change
(flop)
to become a "conservative"
Bruce
Cincinnati, Ohio
* * *
Global Warming
After careful review of the various theories out there the one that
seems the most viable to explain the global warming phenomenon is
this.The sun has solar storms on its surface called sunspots. These
sunspotscome in cycles which last for approximately 200 years at a
time withsome variation in between.
These fluctuations cause climactic changes on the Earth's surface
which are temporary. The rise and fall of many of the civilizations
since Christ can be plotted on the ebb and flow of this cycle. This
theory is backed by tremendous amounts of data and will prove to be
true when more members of the scientific community study the data.
Ozone layer? Nah...Greenhouse gasses? Nope.... Try, the sun. Use
a search engine to look up info on sunspots and look for a work by
TIMO NIROMA titled "Sunspots : 5. The 200 year sunspot cycle
is also a weather cycle". This is very interesting. If anyone
has any further info like this please E-mail me at gojack@bellsouth.net.
Gordon Jackson
* * *
Global Warning
The only facts which are indeed believable regarding changes in the
atmosphere include the directly measurable 50% increase in CO2 levels
since the industrial revolution, caused by the introduction of fossil
fuels, and that the ozone layer has also exhibited progressively larger
holes in both polar regions, suggesting the possibility that it could
be thinning elsewhere. Perhaps the exponential increase in melanomas
in Australia over the past 10 years is related to this. In any case,
it behooves us to spend some investigatory time on both just to see
what is the "real truth"..
Forest fires and volcanoes remained much the same until the rain
forests in Brazil were targeted in the 1960s for the slash and burn
campaign so that cattle ranchers could move in. We really didn't pay
it much attention until NASA photos showed the extent of the fires.
Chris
Klamath Falls Oregon
* * *
Recently there was a news story that the mainstream media completely
ignored. The weather channel reported in the first week of January
that the months of November and December of 2000 was the coldest 2
consecutive month period(in terms of average temperature in the continental
U.S. for each month vs. the normal average temperature for each month
in the continental U.S.) in U..S. History!!!
Further, these scientists with their Global Climate simulations are
telling a big lie. My former Advisor in Graduate school has the most
advanced numerical weather forecasting model available (the Penn State/NCAR
MM5 Mesoscale Model) which failed to create an accurate 3 hour forecast
of a tropical cyclone for my Master's Thesis. If the best model available
can't accurately handle a 3 hour forecast then how can model simulations
accurately predict global climate for the next 100 years???
Global warming is nothing more than a nasty rumor cooked up by grant
hungry scientists and Liberal Politicians who want to ban the automobile.
Brian, Germantown, WI.
* * *
On the discovery Channel on Sunday, March 11th on a show called "Ocean
Mysteries". On that program they presented a short piece about
how NATURALLY OCCURRING Methane Hydroxide is suspected to be cause
for global warming. What this means is that over 50 years of petroleum
use by our modern society has had a negligible effect on"global
warming". Furthermore, it means that human activity has little
effect on "Global Warming". Layers of Methane Hydroxide
when exposed to warm ocean waters release methane gas (a greenhouse
gas) into the atmosphere. It is hypothesized that such an exposure
off the coast of the Netherlands is singularly responsible for bringing
an end to our last ice-age; and as we know....there were no cars or
factories contributing to global warming then. So to wrap this one
up...tell the Alpha Gore crowd to chill out when it comes to their
global warming panic attacks.
