I enjoyed reading your blog. It is so interesting reading other peoples personal take on a subject.

I can’t wait to get back to Grand Cayman for my next vacation but I don’t think the current dollar exchange rate will hold up for long.

I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.

Many diesel powered cars can also run with little or no modifications on 100% biodiesel. Although various pistonless rotary engine designs

If that is possible, can we admit it is also possible that politicians (Gore), environmentalists and socialists are also trying to mislead the public (of the certainty of man’s role in global warming) in an attempt to manipulate, and control, economic policies?

Bad breath can seriously affect our confidence. Find out how you…

Later, on Charlie Rose’s show, Gore went further. Asked by Rose “Do you know any credible scientist who says ‘wait a minute – this hasn’t been proven,’ is there still a debate?” Gore replied, “The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”

This flies in the face of such challengers as professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia who said: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”

Famed climatologist and internationally renowned hurricane expert Dr. William Gray of the atmospheric-science department at Colorado State University went even further, calling the scientific “consensus” on global warming “one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people.”

In agreement with Dr. Bellamy were a host of other respected climatologists including the 19,000 who have signed a declaration that rejects Gore’s accusation that the rise of greenhouse gasses is caused by mankind’s use of fossil fuels. As has been pointed out, previous ice ages have been preceded by a rise on CO2 levels long before there were humans or fossil fuels or backyard barbecues.

Commenting on the scientists who support Gore’s thesis, Dr. Carter one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change, says, “‘Climate experts’ is the operative term here. Why? Because of what Gore’s ‘majority of scientists’ think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore’s activism, “The man is an embarrassment to U.S. science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of who know, but feel unable to state publicly, that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.”

In April, 60 of the world’s leading experts in the field asked Canada’s Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what’s at stake – either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents – it seems like a reasonable request, wrote Tom Harris in the Canada Free Press.

According to Harris, a mechanical engineer, former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball notes that even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. “While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change,” explains Ball. “They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies.”

Adds Ball, among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. “These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios,” asserts Ball. “Since modelers concede computer outputs are not predictions but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts.”

Canada’s new conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been urged by more than 60 leading international climate change experts to review the global warming policies he inherited from his predecessor.
In an open letter that includes five British scientists among the 60 leading international climate change experts who signed the letter, the experts praise Harper’s commitment to review the controversial Kyoto Protocol on reducing emissions harmful to the environment. “Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science,” they wrote in the Canadian Financial Post last week.

They emphasized that the study of global climate change is, in Harper’s own words, an “emerging science” and added: “If, back in the mid 1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” Despite claims to the contrary, there is no consensus among climate scientists on the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, they wrote.

“‘Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.
“Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’”

The letter is the latest effort by climate change skeptics to counter Gore’s demonstrably false claims that there is a consensus that human activity is causing alleged global warming.
Listening to Al Gore makes one wonder if he is the one who believes that “the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.”

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/20/134405.shtml?s=ic

Pure Bull $hit- You lie again as always…The MSM is conservative and you sir are a joke. Norway Bob a pathetic recluse angry at the world loner ( very close to Rush Limberg). All, repeat all serious climatologist concur that 1) the earth is warming and 2) man is partial responseable 3) because of co2. 4) unabated we will become like Venus ( may take a millon years or so).. Why do you hate the Earth?? Going to get sucked up into the sky leaving all your clothes and wallet behind??

Don’t be misled, Kyoto is not about a cleaner planet, it is about what everything else is about, money and control…

Comment by Tom
I agree. Governments are only sheriffs of big companies and they do as they are told. But, your argument is justifying the really bad decision of US in not signing because of the interests of almost every other major pollutants in the world. So, we do bad because they do bad.

Consumption makes our world go round and provides everyone in the US with a high standard of living giving us an opportunity to reach out and help the rest of the world

You must live in Beverly Hills, I guess. You must be aware that almost every major city in the US has really deploring conditions for its population. I dont see that as a high standard, no matter how many Mercedes and Ferraris cruise the streets. Also, consumption does not make the world go round. Where did you study economics? The wealth of the world comes from labor, exploited labor hands I might add; in my opinion, nobody gets rich for being a really hard worker, which is debatable, but just look at Forbes. It seems to me that either you have a very good job in a big company or you are the owner of one, otherwise I dont understand all that blind commitment you have with them. I am guessing you bought the american dream kit for a very high price and now are so unwilling to accept that, if US is a wealthy country, as any other, it is because it has exploited people, within borders and specially overseas. So, in that case, you can be truthful about it and say: “Yeah, I dont care if a taiwanese kid loose his fingers while sewing my next T-shirt, cause US is the only Super Power left (which if that were true, please, do attack China cause they have a lot of WMDs)” In that case, all your silky rethoric would not be useful for anybody at all.
P.S. By the way, you support an economical system that intrinsically excludes you. At the peak of capitalism, there are going to be very few folks really really rich. And my guess is that you wont be one of them. And if you are, you could not be able to walk in the streets without 40 bodyguards. That is a really nice life to live, I guess.

Honestly, its just like I said. In th long run we will use our Oil supplies whether you like it or not. Now in this case, we just dragged our heels to long so we now have to watch a devoloping country like China drill for Oil unregulated off the coast of Florida. YEA!!!

Does anyone remember the movie TOTAL RECALL… Remember how a few had control of the oxygen… Even though the planet itself was a self supporting machine… That info was hidden so oxygen became a commodity… So few people with so much power, the power to take away your very breath… Kyoto sounds like the same scenario, just in reverse… Don’t be misled, Kyoto is not about a cleaner planet, it is about what everything else is about, money and control…

I wouldn’t put my baby toe in the Gulf, or eat anything from it.
Gross…

Or maybe a giant asteroid hit the earth and nobody saw it?

Or maybe CO2 traps heat and combustion releases CO2. But if that’s the case we better hope natural forces don’t also come into play.

I was referring to E85

Comment by Tom
You left me speechless, buddy. Youre so good at this.
First energy has no colors. I know it is a way to call things attractively but you and I can be serious about this, right? I am not familiar with any GREEN, BLACK or MAGENTA energy. There are sources of energy, that is right, some of them pollute, others do not.
I will ask you, what is a fuel?
How does Earth receives energy? Which fuel is burned to do that? See, fuel is something that can be thought as the input for a process. In that sense there are a lot of FUELS out there, which are sources of energy, not just the ones that burn.
E85, E75, whatever, there are a lot of other FUELS that can be used to power something. So far they are not as cheap as others, but common, how much does a car cost? How efficient is a car? mmmm…do you know the efficiency of a car, not just the engine, but the whole car? You have bought the “I have to get a car so I can feel secure about myself” slogan.

It is dishonest to talk like it is a fact because you can not test it in a controlled environment called an experiment

Why US did not sign the Kyoto protocol? Because then other countries are so bad informed that they think global warming can be merely a chance and not a fact. And US is really a great visionary about environmental problems, yeah, right. American corporations have A LOT to loose if they are limited with ecological restraints. Wake up, buddy. You seem smart. Use that for a good cause.