Al Gore Lets Loose In Aspen Institute Speech About Bull**** Anti Global-Warming Pseudoscience

Speaking in Aspen last Thursday, former Vice President Al Gore warned of the impacts of global warming. In sharp contrast to previous appearances, however, Gore may have frothed at the mouth a bit when he told the Aspen Institute's 'Networks and Citizenship' panel not to believe those that dismiss global warming.

In a passionate rant, Gore says his opponents are a group of people, "washing back at you the same crap over and over and over again. There's no longer a shared reality ... It's no longer acceptable in mixed company -- meaning bipartisan company -- to use the goddamn word 'climate.'"

Gore continues,

And some of the exact same people — I can go down a list of their names — are involved in this. And so what do they do? They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: ‘This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.’ Bullshit! ‘It may be sun spots.’ Bullshit! ‘It’s not getting warmer.’ Bullshit!

LISTEN to Gore's speech below, via Aspen Journalism

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that Gore spoke on Monday

Comments

[Wake Up Call]

12:48 PM on 09/18/2011

FOLLOW THE MONEY - this is a rule of thumb used by everyone from historians to police detectives to deduce the truth. Who benefits from pretending that global warming isn't real? Oil companies. Who profits from stopping the funding of research that would curb the reliance on fossil fuels? Oil companies and the defense industry. Now who would benefit from saying that we need to stop polluting the environment and burning up the rainforests? Not much profit there. Any credible scientist in the world will tell you that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is produced by burning fossil fuels, and that ABSOLUTELY increases average global temperatures. This is NOT disputable.

[Deaconess]

06:52 PM on 09/12/2011

Very grateful to Al gore for dedicating so much of his time, money and resources to this most important issue.

[Genders]

09:22 PM on 09/07/2011

Gees, how long to ya think humans can emit over 100 times as much CO2 as all the volcanoes in the world without changing the climate? Duh.

[Publicola]

12:05 AM on 08/29/2011

National Academy of Science (2010)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels.

Global warming is closely associated with other climate changes and impacts, including rising sea levels, increases in intense rainfall events, decreases in snow cover and sea ice, more frequent and intense heat waves, increases in wildfires, longer growing seasons, and ocean acidification. Individually and collectively, these changes pose risks for a wide range of human and environmental systems. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science-Report-Brief-final.pdf

[Brandon Fluffy Baker]

07:44 PM on 08/22/2011

How about everyone stops talking about Al Gore and his version of Global Warming? Not too long ago he said the ice caps would melt and the sea level would rise 20 feet, but then he bought a 5 million dollar house on the coast. He's doesn't care about humans or global warming, he's just trying to get rich off people who want to listen to him.

[DocSkull]

09:22 PM on 08/22/2011

"Not too long ago he said the ice caps would melt and the sea level would rise 20 feet, but then he bought a 5 million dollar house on the coast."

He said "if" they melted completely, and they are melting rapidly. His house on the coast is more than 100 feet above the ocean, besides Gore argues that we can divert disaster. He can buy a house wherever he likes without hypocrisy.

"He's doesn't care about humans or global warming, he's just trying to get rich off people who want to listen to him."

He's already rich from his shrewd investments in Apple and other forms of future technology.

[BlueCollarCritic]

11:18 PM on 08/28/2011

Good replies on your part now lets see if you can explain how paying Al Gore's Carbon Credits scheme (called BLOOD & GORE) will offset the amount of the so called deadly gas known as Carbon Dioxide?

In addition, if the Carbon Dioxide is so deadly and it is therefore necessary to charge people for energy use why then is that same requirement/restriction not applied to all, allowing for some entities like power plants with equipment provided by GE (a sizable contributor to Obama's Campaign) to opt out via a waiver from the president?

Well?

[Publicola]

09:24 PM on 08/22/2011

"Not too long ago he said the ice caps would melt and the sea level would rise 20 feet"

Really. When did he say that was going to happen?

Also the house he bought is not "on" the coast - it is in low-lying hills with a view of th coast.

By the way I accidentally "favorited" your comment - rest assured that was a mistake.

[BlueCollarCritic]

11:28 PM on 08/28/2011

Actually "Facts" have never been a problem for the motivated politician or government let alone powerful corporations. There are some very smart people out there who can do wonders with statistics paired with facts and bend/twist/remake (but not break) those facts to prove any agenda they are pushing for.

The biggest setback to the pro-Climate Change movement is the solution being proposed and how its being inconsistently applied. Its just like bogus Obama Care act. If it were as it is advertised and it was truthful that the people should have it then it would be applied consistently and its not. Just as large corporations have received waivers from having to participate in Obama Care, some are already getting waivers from the EPA to opt out of the new Clean Air Act regulations they are pushing, the same ones the Obama administration could not get thru Congress and so they are now doing it thru the bureaucracy.

You should be ashamed of yourself trying to say that you make the case with facts when anyone with common sense can see this Climate Change is at a minimum not what the government is trying to sell it as and thats assuming there's any truth to it at all.

Please reply with "Conspiracy Theorists" or "Denier" or similar fallacies so you can make my case for why this is so fake.

[Publicola]

12:03 AM on 08/29/2011

BlueCollarCritic: "The biggest setback to the pro-Climat­e Change movement is the solution being proposed and how its being inconsiste­ntly applied... You should be ashamed of yourself trying to say that you make the case with facts when anyone with common sense can see this Climate Change is at a minimum not what the government is trying to sell it as and thats assuming there's any truth to it at all."

You seem confused, BlueCollarCritic.

In this thread I have been discussing the science of climate change and addressing disinformation about and related to it, not public policies as to how to effectively address the AGW threat, and with respect to the science of climate change the scientific evidence supporting AGW theory is overwhelming.

So sorry if that upsets you.

------------------------------------------------

"Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems."

-- National Academy of Sciences, 2010

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=05192010

[texfly]

09:27 PM on 08/21/2011

Anyone who enters the global warming debate should first look at this:

http://alturl.com/6s2fy

And examine it closely noting all the humps and bumps and slopes and admitting that there is unanimous agreement form multiple sources of data. Do despair nor angst over absolute levels, they were taken at different altitudes and there is a thing called lapse rate. It is the slope that counts in global warming and it should always be the focus. The longer the time history, the more robust slope is as a diagnostic.

[cheetah66]

11:50 PM on 08/21/2011

Really? Then maybe you should have looked further back.

http://tinyurl.com/453zguh

[Publicola]

12:55 AM on 08/22/2011

Maybe you should stop cherry-picking your time interval, whereby you try to Hide The Incline in the mean global temperature as climate science deniers are wont to do.

http://tinyurl.com/4y7tjje

[texfly]

11:31 AM on 08/22/2011

I chose those records because 1) deniaers don't trust thermometers and so I put in satellite and radiosonde data too. 2) it is a good starting point that obviates all of the scuttlebut deniers emply about UHI and 3) it uses DATA FROM SKEPTIC SCIENTISTS. In other words, I bent over backwards to use data that you wouldn't object to. So you pick the 40's to 1980 when polluted atmospheres (aerosols) and nuclear bomb tests (100s if not 1000s) proliferated (more aerosols) and produced a net cooling and you use thermometer data that YOU say are wrong. So now that you accept them let's expand the range even more :

http://tinyurl.com/3k4ztf4

Were you always a cheater?

[Jan Badinski]

03:13 AM on 08/25/2011

Wow, that graph clearly shows the warming spike of 1998. I wish I had found this when I was doing a term paper on the affects of the warming on the coral reefs during that year.

[texfly]

10:41 PM on 08/25/2011

Yes, woodfortrees.com is a good site to capture warming data and dispaly it. A picture is worth a thousand words. Un fortunately in science, it often takesa 1000 words to explain a graph and its implications.

Another great site is
spectralcalc.com or .org

Not as good as woodfor trees, but aallows you (without sighning up) to display IR spectra of CO2 and H2O in an absorption cell of user defined length, pressure, concentarion for uo to 100 cm-1 spectral range. Very good for actually seeing absoption of CO2 vs H2O in a common wavlength range, You should know about spectroscopy to interpret the data - again another 1000 words. Unfortunately you cannot link to the data you want to share, like woodfortrees,

[WDMll]

06:38 PM on 08/21/2011

Al Gore lets loose In Aspen

I love it! Al Gore, the high priest of global warming, losing his cool! He is getting over heated.

Al is spewing massive amounts of CO2 or should I say methane (bullshit), pertaining to data coming from the NASA satellite called Terra.

I don’t know who is right about global warming (maybe there is a lot of reality on both sides of the coin). Only time will tell who is right, after all the data is in and cool heads (nonbiased), interpret the data.

wdmll

[e-mail]

[AGooglyMinotaur]

09:04 PM on 08/21/2011

Foolish girl.

[jimboy71]

09:43 PM on 08/21/2011

We've been collecting it for over 100 years. The only debate (manufactured) left is in the MSM. Your noted dislike of Al notwithstanding.

The problem with your laisser-faire attitude is that if we are correct, and ACC is going to be catastrophic, waiting to see if it is isn't the brightest, nor even a half baked good idea. It's an awful idea.

[Publicola]

02:52 PM on 08/21/2011

Dear cheetah66:

You continue to try to cast doubt on the reliability of the global temperature record over recent decades by repeatedly suggesting with zero scientific evidence that the observed global warming trend is biased because of biased temperature station data from urban areas, while you also continue to audaciously ignore the fact that the satellite temperature record is in strong agreement with the surface temperature record.

That strong agreement is again shown here (the first graph):

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/

You can of course chose to continue to willfully ignore reality for reasons of willful mendaciousness and/or ideology-driven blindness; those of us who put scientific truth and reality before ideology however will not.

Care to finally address and answer the question this time?

If as you would have us believe -- again without providing any supporting evidence whatsoever, and again contrary to multiple studies concluding otherwise -- that urban temperature station data has (or for that matter even may have) has significantly biased the global temperature record, then how do you account for the fact that the lower troposphere global temperature trend as measured by satellite is in agreement with the surface-biased global temperature trend?

Please finally answer - thank you.

[BlueCollarCritic]

11:43 PM on 08/28/2011

"New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmist" ( http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html )

"Arctic 'tipping point' may not be reached" ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14408930 )

Please do something! I have millions invested in the GORE & BLOOD Carbon Trading credits and if we can;t sell the public on Climate Fear (like Wall street did with Austerity and Bailouts) I'll be financially ruined. Throw up one of your fancy charts, you know the kind that looks fancy and complex enough that the average person will just accept Climate Fear and its solution despite the fact that the answer makes no sense?

NOTE:The above is sarcasm used to make a point. Did you know that In WW2 era Germany the Nazis said Sarcasm and free speech that was anti-anything the government pushed was bad and had to be banned? I wonder how long it will be before they have to do this with the climate change agenda, calling people racists or similar so as to muddy up their image instead of logically making the case? Oh wait, I forgot, they are already doing this. I guess climate "Denier" wasn't effective enough and so they had to up the game? Looks like the acts of a desperate....

[Publicola]

12:12 AM on 08/29/2011

The Heartland Institute claims yet another propaganda victim.

BlueCollarCritic: "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmist" ( http://new­s.yahoo.co­m/nasa-dat­a-blow-gap­ing-hold-g­lobal-warm­ing-alarmi­sm-1923349­71.html )"

BlueCollarCritic linked to and is parroting Heartland Institute-authored propaganda­, which is misleadingly referring to Heartland Institute "expert" Roy Spence­r's latest NASA satellite data analysis.

Roy Spencer analyzed NASA satellite data incorrectly­ for years, until audited and corrected by independent scientists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/18/science/earth/18CLIM.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

Roy Spencer has been repeatedly debunked by other climate scientists­.

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-1/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/

Roy Spencer believes per the Bible God will protect us from global warming.

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/a-renewed-call-to-truth-prudence-and-protection-of-the-poor.pdf

Roy Spencer is a creationist­.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist­)
http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

Roy Spencer's repeated failures to have NASA data conform to his religious fundamentalist beliefs notwithstanding, science deniers parrot Roy Spencer with zero skepticism­.

[cheetah66]

02:26 PM on 08/21/2011

Publicola wrote: "The paper says there is no observed significan­t UHI effect in the dataset that he examined. Try to read for comprehens­ion."

Do you think that is realistic considering how many papers are out there quantifying just how much effect there is in different areas? If you do it just shows that you are willing to put up with biased cr@p if it supports your agenda. You don't have to argue about whether UHIs affect trends if there are no UHIs. Yup, that's a class act you've got there.

[gallon]

02:33 PM on 08/21/2011

Why are you top posting this? If Publicola wrote this, then respond to him there. Sounds like you are trying to gain attention for your hopeless cause.

[cheetah66]

02:58 PM on 08/21/2011

Look at where Publicola wrote it. There is no "Reply" button. Publicola likes to put zingers at the end where there is no reply button, some times two or three.

[gallon]

03:05 PM on 08/21/2011

It is HuffPost that indents the comments. Learn how to raise your comments by one level like everyone else.

[Publicola]

02:43 PM on 08/21/2011

Again, that was a paper that YOU provided.

Again, I do not know if it is a "good" paper or not.

Again, that's what the report says.

Again, what that report says is not in conflict with the known existence of Urban Heat Istands.

Again, if you think the report is wrong then it's up to you to demonstrate as much.

Again, this is a red herrring in any event.

Again, you continue to evade addressing the fact that the satellite temperature record is in agreement with the surface temperature record, thus demonstrating that your repeated attempts to have readers believe that the UHI significantly biased the global temperature record is science denier crapolla.

[gallon]

02:12 PM on 08/21/2011

Cheetah, you give the impression that you like to bicker a lot.

You wanted room 12A:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM&feature=related

[AGooglyMinotaur]

02:18 PM on 08/21/2011

It's getting-hit-on-the-head lessons in HP.

[jimboy71]

02:59 PM on 08/21/2011

BTW I have been loving your takedowns this weekend.

[cheetah66]

03:03 PM on 08/21/2011

LOL, gotta love it. Well you don't have to I suppose, but ;)

[cheetah66]

02:03 PM on 08/21/2011

cheetah66 wrote: Right, what those scientists at the IPCC say doesn't matter when it doesn't fit your agenda.

Publicola wrote: There you go falsely putting words in my mouth and lying again.

There you go lying again. What words did I attribute to you?

[AGooglyMinotaur]

02:09 PM on 08/21/2011

The sheer number of words you've used to make a couple simple arguments ("it's water vapor," "it's because of UHI") shows an almost unfathomable inefficiency of thought. The refutations, for all your needless babbling, are short and simple. Humans have not significantly changed the partial pressure of water vapor over the last 130 years; the supposed UHI effects play little role in average measurements that are collected from several thousand meteorological stations worldwide, many of which bear no profile that might be subject to UHI effects.

Babble, babble, rabble, rabble. You've exposed yourself for what you are. Now get out of here.

[Publicola]

02:23 PM on 08/21/2011

You have repeatedly twisted and misrepresented my words, liar. That includes your "what those scientists at the IPCC say doesn't matter if it doesn't fit your agenda" lie.

Stop lying, liar.

[cheetah66]

03:07 PM on 08/21/2011

Those were my words. What words did I falsely attribute to you liar?

[Publicola]

12:59 PM on 08/21/2011

Dear cheetar66:

You continue to refuse to answer my question about the agreement between the surface and satellite global temperature datasets.

The sentient reader may quite reasonably regard your ongoing repeated evasion of the question as you being being willfully dishonest with respect to the global temperature record.

Perhaps that assessment would be too harsh though - you may instead be an ideology-driven True Believer who is simply too wedded to your faith-based ideology to rationally comprehend and accept reality that undermines your ideology.

Either way, you cheetar66 continue to do your best to cast doubt on the reliability of the global temperature record over recent decades by repeatedly suggesting with zero scientific evidence that the observed global warming trend is biased by urban heat influence, while you also continue to blatantly ignore the fact that the satellite temperature record is in strong agreement with the surface temperature record.

That strong agreement is again shown here (the first graph):

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/

continued...

[Publicola]

01:01 PM on 08/21/2011

You cheetar66 can of course chose to continue to willfully ignore reality for reasons of willful mendaciousness and/or ideology-driven blindness, but rest assured that those of us who are in the Reality-Based Community will not, especially in an exchange such as this one where you continue to try to sell others on the false notion that urban influences bias the global temperature record.

In any event here that question is again - care to finally address and answer it this time?

 If you are so sure -- again without providing any supporting evidence whatsoever, and again contrary to multiple studies concluding otherwise -- that the Urban Heat Island Effect has (or for that matter even may have) has significantly biased the global temperature record, then how do you account for the fact that the lower troposphere global temperature trend as measured by satellite is in agreement with the surface-biased global temperature trend?

[AnthropologistAmongApes]

01:04 PM on 08/21/2011

I'll second Publicola's request and add that cheetar66 has evaded the question because it demolishes his premise that urban heat islands have improperly affected temperature measurements.

[cheetah66]

01:20 AM on 08/22/2011

You have incorrectly interperted my premise. I have said that Peterson's claim that UHI effect don't exist at all are cr@p. He is not talking trends or global data, he is talking a direct comparison of urban areas to the near by rural areas.

[Publicola]

12:51 PM on 08/22/2011

cheetah66: "You have incorrectly interpreted my premise."

Really.

What this about, then?

---------------------------------
cheetah66: "urbanization... there is some argument about whether it is adequately allowed for in the global temperature record"

cheetah66: "there are still questions about the accuracy of the temperature record... the extent of the warming could very well be less than the record shows."

cheetah66: "Assuming the temperature data record is correct."
----------------------------------

Nice attempts at repeatedly trying to cast doubt on the reliability of the temperature record, in part by suggesting that urbanization has biased it.

And nice attempt at a walk-back from that false science-denier meme after it was ripped to shreds.

Again you are all smoke and red herrings, cheater.

[StephenBP]

07:16 AM on 08/21/2011

That urban heat island meme is the erroneous belief that because some weather recording stations are poorly sited, or sited in urban areas, that there is no such thing as global warming.

Common sense tells us, however, that even if a weather recording station is poorly sited, it will still record a trend upward or downward. If it is in the middle of an asphalt parking lot, it will still be able to record a trend over a number of years.

And there are no urban heat effects on the ocean. If you throw out all the land data, you still have data from ocean measurements, and these clearly show warming.

Also, there are no urban heat effects on satellite data,no urban heat islands in the upper atmosphere. And these clearly show warming.

By the way, Tulia, Turkey, and Silverton Texas all set high temperature records yesterday. Funny, but those sites are about as country as it gets.

The urban heat island myth is just a vehicle for fossil fuel supporters to throw up some dust and obscure a very ugly reality. Humans are causing global warming. Stop denying it.

[cheetah66]

10:31 AM on 08/21/2011

Yes, there can be s fslse meme about UHIs just as there can be some about CAGW. That doesn't make AGW itself false, or the UHI effect. Only a denier would claim either.

Even if you don't notice that setting your lawn chair up on your driveway leaves you a bit warmer than if you had it on your lawn I am pretty sure you would figure it out if over the years you added pavement till your chair was sitting in the middle of a square mile of blackness. Are you denying it would be warmer?

You haven't heard me make any huge claims for how much the UHI effects alter trends. It has little effect because the surface area involved is small compared to the total. What is more important here is the dishonesty some show in denying that it even exists. Peterson wrote his paper knowing full well that it was a distortion of reality. And the warmers at NOAA had no problem with that as they put it up on their site. The end justifies the means don't you know ;)

As for the records, have you figured out why there are no new records on this list?

http://www­.infopleas­e.com/ipa/­A0001416.h­tml

Do you think they are lying? If they are why don't you show us the real records.

[AnthropologistAmongApes]

01:08 PM on 08/21/2011

Since you keep implicating other environmental problems as though they are unrelated to the drivers of climate change, and more important; let's discuss the sources of that degradation in human behavior and ideology and see if there is any overlap with the greater problem of ACC.

[AnthropologistAmongApes]

01:57 PM on 08/21/2011

I'm enlarging the subject to include the proper context for this discussion; but not in the way you have consistently used other environmental imperatives as reason to disregard ACC. In this case we will be able to determine if you have any capacity to value the natural world beyond the fodder it provides for unexamined lifestyles. This in turn gets us to how much attention you pay to the status and trends affecting nature. If you are not paying attention to other indicators then why would this particular one compel the sudden appearance of attention and expertise on your part? Shall we start with ecological indicators that support the theory? Perhaps you would prefer we discuss ideology, values, economics, or developmental states and their relationship to greed within the context of ecology.

[cheetah66]

01:33 AM on 08/21/2011

Publicola wrote: "Wrong. Again your first response was scientific­ally invalid; see above."

cheetah66's first response was: "2: Considerin­g that water vapor seems to be self regulating your statment would be correct."

So you are saying you weren't correct?

[Publicola]

12:07 PM on 08/21/2011

Again your response was scientifically invalid - see below.

[cheetah66]

12:24 PM on 08/21/2011

Getting so you can't give a straight answer about anything anymore.

Are you saying that you weren't correct about co2 being the driver, or are you saying I wasn't correct about WV being self regulating.

If the former you have admitted you were wrong.

If the later then WV would be a driver, and it is stronger than co2, so you would be wrong about co2 being the main driver.

So tell me, which part of my first response was wrong?

[realpolitic]

03:21 PM on 08/21/2011

How is water vapor self-regulating?

[cheetah66]

07:30 AM on 08/22/2011

Have you observed runaway warming due to WV acting as a feedback when WV causes warming? Didn't think so.

[cheetah66]

12:41 AM on 08/21/2011

Publicola wrote: "I'm still waiting on you to substantia­te your claim that "land use has had and probably still has a far stronger effect on warming than it is given credit for by the IPCC", as opposed to your ongoing hand-wavin­g."

You don't think those links I provided were a fair start?

http://www­.sciencema­g.org/cont­ent/288/54­72/1828.ab­stract?sid­=6238c084-­259a-4de2-­a87c-2ba43­7cad60d

Globally, tropical deforestat­ion releases 20 to 30% of anthropoge­nic greenhouse gases.


http://www­.sciencema­g.org/cont­ent/247/49­48/1322.ab­stract?sid­=d16d7dc5-­cc2d-43b1-­b198-0c9fe­3992453

"When the tropical forests in the model were replaced by degraded grass (pasture), there was a significan­t increase in surface temperatur­e and a decrease in evapotrans­piration and precipitat­ion over Amazonia."

So we have deforestation as opposed to fossil fuels providing up to 30% of the GH gasses, and additional warming that was acknowledged by the IPCC at one of my previous links even though they haven't quantified how much.


http://www.ota.com/organic/environment/cotton_environment.html

"Nitrogen synthetic fertilizers are a major contributor to increased N2O emissions, which are 300 times more potent than CO2 as greenhouse gas (5), which is ominous for global warming as synthetic fertilizer use is forecasted to increase roughly 2.5 times by mid-century (6). "

Add up the above and land use could be the cause of 50% of AGW. How much does th IPCC credit it with?

[Publicola]

12:11 PM on 08/21/2011

"Add up the above and land use could be the cause of 50% of AGW."?

Where do you get that number from?

And why aren't you taking into account albedo?

[cheetah66]

01:47 PM on 08/21/2011

I'm pretty sure albedo was included in those articles I linked to, but if you think it wasn't given enough credit that just means co2 becomes even less of a factor. Thank you for playing :)

As for where the 50% came from, you saw where the 30% came from, and that was just for deforestation. Then you add a bit for land cultivation, for example

http://www.ota.com/organic/environment/cotton_environment.html

I wonder how much growing all that corn for ethanol has added to the problem?

Whatever, add in a bit more for desertfication caused by diverting all the water to irrigate those crops. We are talking about huge land areas here. How much do you think each of the things I listed accounts for given how much deforestation alone accounted for? I know, you don't want to know.

[Publicola]

02:11 PM on 08/21/2011

You start with a 20-30% estimate for greenhouse gas contribution (NOT total AGW contribution), hand-wave that estimate up to 50% of total AGW contribution, and moreover neglect to include land use cooling influence from albedo.

What a joke.

Let me guess: you are not a scientist, are you.

Get back to us when you can provide a scientifically-defensible calculation.