Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Algore says so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opini ... gewanted=1

My thoughts:

1. Gore is entitled to his opinion
2. Gore has invested in alternative energy sources, which means that his opinion may be biased
3. We still don't know enough to dismiss global warming all together, laugh at Gore if you want, but he may turn out to be right.

Screw Al Gore. Screw the Earth. Screw our kids.

BlueHen86 wrote:My thoughts:

1. Gore is entitled to his opinion
2. Gore has invested in alternative energy sources, which means that his opinion may be biased
3. We still don't know enough to dismiss global warming all together, laugh at Gore if you want, but he may turn out to be right.

Points well taken all around, Mr. Blue Pants, but if Gore turns out to be partially right about human-caused global warming, he still failed to make the scientific case for either global warming or human causation, and neiher he nor his followers have made the case for his disastrous policy prescriptions.

93henfan wrote:Screw Al Gore. Screw the Earth. Screw our kids.

"Screw our kids" is EXACTLY what Algore and his minions are attempting to do.

native wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:My thoughts:

1. Gore is entitled to his opinion
2. Gore has invested in alternative energy sources, which means that his opinion may be biased
3. We still don't know enough to dismiss global warming all together, laugh at Gore if you want, but he may turn out to be right.

Points well taken all around, Mr. Blue Pants, but if Gore turns out to be partially right about human-caused global warming, he still failed to make the scientific case for either global warming or human causation, and neiher he nor his followers have made the case for his disastrous policy prescriptions.

But hopefully he woke people up to the fact that they should be researching those things. I have no problem with people who want to trash bad policies. I am not defending Gore or policies that were passed out of ignorance.

I just don't think we should be laughing off the concept of global warming just yet.

BlueHen86 wrote:

native wrote:
Points well taken all around, Mr. Blue Pants, but if Gore turns out to be partially right about human-caused global warming, he still failed to make the scientific case for either global warming or human causation, and neiher he nor his followers have made the case for his disastrous policy prescriptions.

But hopefully he woke people up to the fact that they should be researching those things. I have no problem with people who want to trash bad policies. I am not defending Gore or policies that were passed out of ignorance.

I just don't think we should be laughing off the concept of global warming just yet.

Then we are agreed!

....So tell everyone else to sit down and shut up!

Of course "climate change" is real. The climate is CONSTANTLY changing in cycles. That's why we had an ice age and we don't have one now.

That may not fit Gore's bogus definition, but it's certainly true.

I would agree that the climate in Washington, DC has certainly changed this winter.

CID1990 wrote:I would agree that the climate in Washington, DC has certainly changed this winter.

Nah....still the same hot air coming out of Washington.

BlueHen86 wrote:My thoughts:

1. Gore is entitled to his opinion
2. Gore has invested in alternative energy sources, which means that his opinion may be biased
3. We still don't know enough to dismiss global warming all together, laugh at Gore if you want, but he may turn out to be right.

Well, he's got a 50-50 shot, right? I mean, it's either cooling or warming...

93henfan wrote:Screw Al Gore. Screw the Earth. Screw our kids.

Credo of the neo-conservative movement.

CID1990 wrote:I would agree that the climate in Washington, DC has certainly changed this winter.

And in Missoula, MT. You guys probably got more snow in a few hours than we have all winter.

AZGrizFan wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:My thoughts:

1. Gore is entitled to his opinion
2. Gore has invested in alternative energy sources, which means that his opinion may be biased
3. We still don't know enough to dismiss global warming all together, laugh at Gore if you want, but he may turn out to be right.

Well, he's got a 50-50 shot, right? I mean, it's either cooling or warming...

Or the climate could be staying the same, which is apparently what many people believe.

The Warming of Earth can cause much colder weather. Get a fucking clue people.

UNHWildCats wrote:The Warming of Earth can cause much colder weather. Get a fucking clue people.

...on a silver platter...

UNHWildCats wrote:The Warming of Earth can cause much colder weather. Get a **** clue people.

I actually did vote for the the 87 billion before I voted against it..

BlueHen86 wrote:I just don't think we should be laughing off the concept of global warming just yet.

You mean like the way GW people yelled at those who dare not believe?

SuperHornet wrote:Of course "climate change" is real. The climate is CONSTANTLY changing in cycles. That's why we had an ice age and we don't have one now.

That may not fit Gore's bogus definition, but it's certainly true.

89Hen wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:I just don't think we should be laughing off the concept of global warming just yet.

You mean like the way GW people yelled at those who dare not believe?

No

BlueHen86 wrote:

89Hen wrote: You mean like the way GW people yelled at those who dare not believe?

No

Bluehen86, would you please stop offending everyone with your over-the-top and arrogant pronouncements?!???

native wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
No

Bluehen86, would you please stop offending everyone with your over-the-top and arrogant pronouncements?!???

I'm trying. I think if I typed "the sky is blue", someone would either dispute it or blame someone.

BlueHen86 wrote:

native wrote:
Bluehen86, would you please stop offending everyone with your over-the-top and arrogant pronouncements?!???

I'm trying. I think if I typed "the sky is blue", someone would either dispute it or blame someone.

Color is one of the intrinsic properties of something material. We perceive its color because some light reflected from it reaches our eyes. The smallest unit of matter with specific properties is a molecule. All matter in the universe represents conglomeration of different types of molecules in diverse configurations. How light gets affected by material in its path depends on the size of the material. There are four basic processes that light goes through when it falls on an object. These are reflection, refraction, diffraction, and scattering. Of these only scattering is of any consequence when tiny particles like molecules are involved.

On a bright clear day the sky appears blue. This happens because the earth has a gaseous atmosphere in which oxygen and nitrogen are the dominant components. When the light from the sun hits the nitrogen and oxygen molecules it is scattered in all directions. By light we normally mean the visible part of electromagnetic radiation. The light from the sun contains the seven primary colors from violet to red. The color depends on the frequency or the wavelength of the radiation. The wavelength increases from violet to red, while the frequency decreases. For particles comparable to the wavelength of light the scattering depends on the wavelength. The shorter the wavelength, the larger is the amount of scattering.

The human eye senses color mainly through three primary colors - red, green, and blue. That is why in television signals these three colors are used for producing the color pictures. The blue component of the scattered light is almost ten times stronger than the red. Even though the violet and indigo are scattered more than blue the eye senses mainly blue. Therefore when we look at the sky away from the sun the sky appears blue. This is, of course, true only on a clear day. If there are extraneous particles in the atmosphere as in conditions of haze, they scatter light differently and the sky does not appear blue. Also this is true only for observations on or near the earth. In space there is no atmosphere and no scattering particles. There is no light coming to the observer except directly from the sun and the sky appears black or dark.

In the literature we often come across the question: why is the sky blue? The use of the verb 'is' here is erroneous. The sky is neither blue nor black nor any color. As stated before, color is an intrinsic property of material objects and sky is not one. So we have another basic question: what is sky? The etymology for the word in dictionaries does not really provide any clues. The reference to Indo-European languages is also vague. So we turn to Sanskrit, where the word for sky is aakaashah. It consists of two parts 'aa' and 'kaashah'. As a prefix 'aa' has several meanings, one of them is 'as far as'. The word 'kaashah' means visible. Thus akaashah means 'as far as visible'. Taking the Sanskrit meaning sky means the empty space all around as far as one can see. Therefore the sky is nonmaterial and it cannot have any properties associated with matter.

We see everything in the universe against the background of the sky, which is total emptiness. We do not see sky - we cannot see emptiness. What we see are the molecules of the atmospheric gases although not directly and in the normal sense of seeing objects. Everything is embedded in this emptiness. In fact, for any human perception it is necessary to have the background of a corresponding emptiness. To see the pictures on television we must have black or gray screen. To hear a sound we need the background of silence and so on.

The sky has no shape and no size. From the earth it appears as a hemispherical dome because the earth is spherical. It extends as far as we can see, which is the limit of the universe. But what lies beyond? Nothing. And what happens when all the matter in the universe vanishes? Space-time also vanishes and nothing remains. The emptiness represented by the sky then merges with the all-pervading emptiness described by ancient philosophies and experienced in deep meditation. At the microscopic level it may be likened to the quantum void, which is empty but holds the potential for all matter to appear. In Vedanta and Buddhism the word shunyata is used for this emptiness. It pervades all, contains all, and transcends all.

Dharmbir Rai Sharma is a retired professor with electrical engineering and physics background. He obtained his M.S. degree in physics in India and Ph.D. in electrical engineering at Cornell University. He has taught in universities here and also in Brazil, where he spent sometime. He maintains a website http://www.cosmosebooks.com devoted mainly to philosophy and science.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Dharmbir_Sharma


SEE ALSO

http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html

































Sorry, I had too

^
That's all bullshit Clenz. The sky is blue and white because God is a Penn State fan. Everyone knows that.

What makes Gore a target of ridicule isn't that he believes in man-made climate change but that he and the "dependent" scientific community have tried to squash debate through statements like "the debate's over" and misleading purposeful misinformation such as An Inconvenient Truth and Climategate. More of the arrogance of elitism, don't let the truth get in the way of telling the typical dumb average folks what's best for them.