so, by Karl's logic, being a "left wing nut job" is an immediate disqualification for any sort of actual or factual evidence...

does that mean I can discount anything that he says about the weather by nature of the fact that he's a narrowminded neocon?

meh. never thought he was that good of a prognosticator anyhow...

Just another reason not to watch or listen to the crap that the 'northland's newscenter' puts out. what a load of crap.

If I were to create a production of "The Raider of the Lost Ark" using local television new talent, I would definitely cast Karl Spring as a Nazi henchman. Nothing too significant maybe like one of the Major Toht's henchmen. Yeah.

Would it have been better if he'd said he wouldn't go see Al Bore's movie because the science Al uses is all bullshit?

I wouldn't use the term 'nutjob'. Maybe 'hypocrite', but not nutjob.

Yet another reason why George is superior to Karl: George would *never* say something asinine like that.

I don't know about wings just nuts. Then again maybe the sky is falling.

MMMMMMMM... Wings and nuts.

I already wrote an email to Dave Jensch, the Northland News Center's station head honcho. Those kind of immature insults don't belong on the public airwaves. I'm switching over to WDIO. Denny would never let his meteorolgist talk like that! George would never have spewed this kind of crap either.

Well, George tends to the right and has been a global warming cynic in the past. However, I think he is willing to have an intelligent conversation about it, and he is not likely to negatively label people based on his own opinions-- especially in such a flippant manner. I'm disappointed in Karl Spring. His comment shows poor judgment on many levels.

I'm really glad we hang people for giving opinions that differ from ours.

Maybe Karl is just mad as hell and won't take it anymore.

i would really just like to go through ONE SINGLE DAY without somebody in Internets Comment-land (or FoxNews or print media) making a ridiculously insane analogy between hanging/lynching and somebody getting a sound verbal drumming in the public fora.

for fuck's sake.

verbal drubbing.

and public forum.

sigh.

Do Karl Spring's wing and nuts know Sven Svengaard's penis?

That is really sad.

Beat me to that one, HBH.

And it sounds like he wasn't giving an opinion, he was denouncing someone else's opinion. Slight difference.

I'm confused about the whole hanging thing. Was tremolite denouncing Karl for "hanging" Al or denouncing some commenters for "hanging" Karl.

Something's being hung here.

At any rate, Karl's comments amount to an ad hominen attack and should be denounced as such.

Have you ever noticed that only nut jobs call people nut jobs?

Wait...

Chads.

i gotyer chad right here.

The full audio is available on KUWS.fm.

Spring doesn't deny that global warming exists or that it's the fault of human beings and their fossil fuels. He seems mainly against the politicization of the topic, saying that the facts in the movie are inaccurate and twisted for Gore's own political gain.

what political gain?
MAYbe with Diebold's help he could "win" an election...

but do you really think that's what Gore's up to?

perhaps it's penance for the invention of the interwebs and that whole potatoe thing.

He didn't say anything about an election, and "gain" was a word I used when paraphrasing.

Everyone should listen to the interview, and not to me.

potatoe was Dan Quail, and Gore actually never said he invented the internet. Snopes has a fairly good write up about the incident in question

Al Gore is a "left-wing nutjob". If you believe his financially and politically motivated meanderings, then perhaps your mother should have been should have been an extreme pro-abortion advocate.

Thanks for the link, Barrett. I hadn't heard the interview but just had read the report I cited before posting this. While Mr. Spring does start with an ad hominem attack, he does actually address some of his science-based concerns later on which are not cited in the article. You should hear the whole thing in context.

Al Gore couldn't find his ass with two hands and anyone who buys into his B.S. should retroactively abort themselves. Kudos to Mr. Spring for calling a "spade" a spade.

i luv you b cookie!

I must admit that I think Al Gore is definately a hypocrite concerning his "global warming" stance. This is a guy who wants people to ride bikes or walk to work yet he travels all over in a private jet. He also justifies his multi thousand dollar monthly electric bill for his mansion by saying he invests in a tree farm, or whatever it is that is supposedly producing oxygen. I believe that good old Al actually owns the company he gives the money to - what a bunch of b.s.

I have seen the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" and it is definataely an oxymoron, the movie should have been titled : "A convenient Un-truth"

shoot...sorry barrett...is was late and you were right...

Regarding the article in today's Duluth paper:

I find it interesting that you captured the essence of the debate about Al Gore's movie in your article as well as public discourse about research results.

"Spring then dropped the “left-wing nut” comment and said that, although he
hadn’t seen the movie,........"

This is typical by many nay sayers of any information, scientific or not,
from any location on the spectrum of political ideology. Many of the
comments are made by people who either have never seen or read the
information themselves or more commonly, fail to understand it.

Scientists don't agree on global warming and it's existence and if I remember correctly from school, there is no room in science for consensus. Something is either proven true or false. In the case of Al Gore and his movie, a judge in the UK found NINE LIES that in the movie that have to be disclosed to any English student who watches it. Why don't we do that in our country? I don't like name calling, but I will defend Mr. Spring's right to say what he would like--it's called free speech. That's supposed to be a right here in America. If you really want to know what our country should be all about, google Ron Paul and see how far we have come from the constitution and our rights. To me, that is more frightening that global warming.

"Global Warming" is nothing but spin put on a natual occurance by profit grabbing, spotlight hungry individuals. Nutty Gore would be a lot more believable if he did not own a business that is selling "Carbon Offsets". Don't any of the posters here have any earth sciences training, or are all of you liberal, liberal ed dropouts? Science (Climatology, Geology, Oceanography, even Paleontology for a few samples) proves that climate goes through natural cycles, look into that proof, if you dare!!! You might actually learn something. Do not be led, by a greedy nut such as Gore, like midless sheep. Nutty Gore is just crying "The sky is falling" strictly for personal gain, both political and financial.

Karl's a local (chief)meteorologist, not a social commentator. Paul Douglas is not pleased.

ke, you nailed it exfuckingzactly!! I just wish the name calling on both sides of the issue would stop.

Karl utilizes free speech to offer his opinion and lefty types go ballistic. Of course its OK when a celebrity spouts off on global warming and boy aren't they the experts! Gore is a celebrity/polititcian. The Nobel Prize was a joke.

Karl did utilize his free speech rights, I don't think anyone can argue with that. However, he's a weather man for cripe's sake..isn't it slightly disconcerting that a person who studies the weather for a living is blinded by his right wing ideology? Al Gore has actually done a lot of work and investigation on global warming and even agrees that the earth goes through natural cycles..it is the rapid rate of increase in the cycles and their consequences that are the kicker. Sure he rides in a jet..I'm a Green Party member and I drive a car. We all have to make conscious choices about our own ecological footprints...at least he is breaking a sweat trying to get his message out-its better than doing nothing, ignoring reality, and name calling.

Bush would never have let this go untouched if it had been a democrat saying that against a republican. He would have had him arrested and sent to jail to await trial...I think Karl should be fired for his actions on public tv...I will never listen to him again or watch channel 6 if he remains on there...I will watch l0-l3..

Four words: Storm in a teacup. Karl Spring was misguided (but within his rights) to turn the discussion political instead of dealing with facts. But a lot of people are extrapolating (probably correctly) that Karl is on the other side of the spectrum, and using that to discredit him as any kind of scientist. How does that work?
Also, it's like the idea of global warming didn't even legitimately exist until Al Gore made a movie of it. And I think it makes some people uncomfortable when one person with the capital to create something like 'An Inconvenient Truth' gets the glory for compiling decades of research. Whatever side of the fence you sit on...

P.T. Barnum reincarnated as Al Gore. Now theres a movie!! Too bad the Nobel committee is so corrupt.
How about the peace prize for someone who really deserves it. (Burma Monks perhaps)

P.T. Barnum reincarnated as Al Gore. Now theres a movie!! Too bad the Nobel committee is so corrupt.
How about the peace prize for someone who really deserves it. (Burma Monks perhaps)

whoa nellie who opened the flood gates? heh. A lot of poorly remembered stuff being spit forth. I'll tackle just one or two of them.

Science is mostly about consensus, a theory is proposed tested and accepted or not until a better one comes along or it is shown the old one is invalid. Very rarely are things as cut and dried as "proven true or false", things change, new data is collected and theories are refined. There is an overwhelming consensus (and yes that is the right and proper term)that global warming is exasberated by human activity. If you wish to ignore that and feel that humans have little impact on the climate there isn't much anyone can do except point you back towards the gathering mountain of evidence to the contrary. Yes, the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling, but also yes the current cycle is being partially driven by the amount of carbon emissions we are putting into the atmosphere. It is making a natural cycle bigger and more extreme.
This is not really a liberal or conservative issue and trying to make it one is disingenuous to the point of making yourselves look a bit foolish.

I fail to see how Gore is achieving anything political out of this, he is not running for anything, and yes he owns a working farm that consumes electricity, and flies in a plane, the point being? How does that detract from encouraging people to walk or ride a bike (OMG walking is a liberal issue, you better cut off your legs!)
But whatever, I suspect the recent commentators have wandered in from "Free Duluth citizens blog", you'll find we engage in a lot less mysterious deletion of posts around here.

I'm discouraged when meteorologists like Karl Spring or Dave Dahl (KSTP) pipe up against scientific FACT.

FACT: global climate is warming dramatically

FACT: there is much more man-produced carbon in the atmosphere than ever.

FACT: climate change will have drastic effect on human civilization, some good, mostly bad

I would hope that at least meteorologists would understand these facts. Perhaps they need to review their lessons on the differences between weather and climate.

Lets not forget Al Gore made this a political issue. I give Karl Spring credit for calling it like it is. Al Gore is nuts.

Just a note - if you follow the link you'll realize that the adam above is not the transistor adam who is a regular here, but an entirely different adam.

Al Gore is a hypocrite. He wants us to change our life styles to "cut our carbon footprint" but HE can fly around in his fuel guzzling jet promoting HIS movie and HIS carbon offset business. How big of a carbon footprint is that? He can live in a house that uses 20 times the power of the average American. He also put out feelers recently to run for the Presidency. What is your definition of a hypocrite? What fool can honestly say that Gore isn't using his "Sky is falling" cry to his political and financial advantage? I hope that none of the individuals posting here is stupid enough to think that nut job Gore is doing this as a humanitarian.

Tell me what the republicans who controlled congress since l993 done up to this minute to change or fix things..your court selected president and vice president..oh ya 5 deferment dick and the cheerleader who couldnt even fullfill his tour of duty done that is so great...Absolutely nothing but get us into trouble with all other countries and get us into uncontrolable debt...he also should be in jail with Karl for running off there discusting mouths about things they know nothing about....good riddens we will only have that crew for another year and they will all be history....Global warming is for real..or dont you care about your kids and theres.....better wake up people....

Algore`s book, An Inconvenient Truth is rife with either one sided, misleading,speculative,exaggerated or just plain wrong statements:

One-sided statements

• It neglects to mention that aggregate mortality and mortality rates due to extreme weather events declined dramatically during the 20 th century.

• It neglects to mention the circumstances that make it reasonable rather than blameworthy for America to be the biggest CO 2 emitter: the world's largest economy, abundant fossil energy resources, markets integrated across continental distances, the world's most mobile population.

• The book impugns the motives of so-called global warming skeptics but never acknowledges the special-interest motivations of those whose research grants, direct mail income, industrial policy privileges, regulatory power, prosecutorial plunder, or political careers depend on keeping the public in a state of fear about global warming.

• AIT never addresses the obvious criticism that the Kyoto Protocol is all economic pain for no environmental gain and that regulations stringent enough to measurably cool the planet would be a “cure” worse than the alleged disease.

Misleading statements

• AIT implies that, throughout the past 650,000 years, changes in CO 2 levels preceded and largely caused changes in global temperature, whereas the causality mostly runs the other way: CO 2 changes followed global temperature changes.

• It ignores the societal factors that typically overwhelm climatic factors in determining people's risk of damage or death from hurricanes, floods, drought, tornadoes, wildfires, and disease.

• It implies that a study, which found that none of 928 science articles (actually abstracts) denied a CO 2 -global warming link, shows that Gore's apocalyptic view of global warming is the “consensus” view among scientists.

• It reports that 48 Nobel Prize-winning scientists accused Bush of distorting science, without mentioning that the scientists acted as members of a 527 political group set up to promote the Kerry for President Campaign.

Exaggerated statements

• AIT hypes the importance and exaggerates the certainty of the alleged link between global warming and the frequency and severity of tropical storms.

• Claims polar bears “have been drowning in significant numbers,” based on a report that found four drowned polar bears in one month of one year, following an abrupt storm.

• Portrays the collapse in 2002 of the Larson-B ice shelf—a formation the “size of Rhode Island”—as harbinger of doom. For perspective, the Larson-B was 180 th the size of Texas and 1/246 th the size of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS).

• AIT presents a graph suggesting that China's new fuel economy standards are almost 30% more stringent than the current U.S. standards. In fact, the Chinese standards are only about 5% more stringent.

Speculative statements

• AIT blames global warming for the record-breaking 37-inch downpour in Mumbai, India, in July 2005, even there has been no trend in Mumbai rainfall for the month of July in 45 years.

• It blames global warming for recent floods in China's Sichuan and Shandong provinces, even though more damaging floods struck those areas in the 19 th and early 20 th centuries.

• It blames global warming for the disappearance of Lake Chad, a disaster more likely stemming from a combination of regional climate variability and societal factors such as population increase and overgrazing.

• AIT warns that a doubling of pre-industrial CO 2 levels to 560 ppm will so acidify seawater that all optimal areas for coral reef construction will disappear by 2050—implausible because coral calcification rates have increased as ocean temperatures and CO 2 levels have risen, and today's main reef builders evolved and thrived during the Mesozoic Period, when atmospheric CO 2 levels hovered above 1,000 ppm for 150 million years and exceeded 2,000 ppm for several million years.

• It warns of “significant and alarming structural changes” in the submarine base of the WAIS, but does not tell us what those changes are or why they are “significant and alarming.” The WAIS has been retreating since the early Holocene. At the rate of retreat observed in the 1990s, the WAIS should disappear in about 7,000 years.

• It warns that half the Greenland Ice Sheet could “slide” into the sea, even though the ice sheet sits in a bowl-like depression surrounded by mountains that restrict glacial outflow to the sea.

Wrong statements

• AIT claims glaciologist Lonnie Thompson's reconstruction of climate history proves the Medieval Warm Period was “tiny” compared to the warming observed in recent decades. It doesn't. Four of Thompson's six ice cores indicate the Medieval Warm Period was as warm as or warmer than any recent decade.

• It claims the rate of global warming is accelerating, when it has been remarkably constant for the past 30 years—roughly 0.17°C/decade.

• It attributes Europe's killer heat wave of 2003 to global warming; it was actually due to an atmospheric circulation anomaly.

• It claims that 2004 set an all-time record for the number of tornadoes in the United States. Tornado frequency has not increased; rather, the detection of smaller tornadoes has increased. If we consider the tornadoes that have been detectable for many decades (F-3 or greater), there is actually a downward trend since 1950.

• It blames global warming for a “mass extinction crisis” that is not, in fact, occurring

The mean temps have not gone up since `96. So what happened to your run away + feedback loop theory?

The warmest years were in the `30`s and not the 90`s. James Hansen`s (NASA) data was either flawed or rigged.

-CO2 is only about 0.038% of the atmosphere and only 3.6 per cent of greenhouse gases. Of that only 3.4 to 5% is man-made. CO2 as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

-Mankind (anthropomorphic climate change) IS NOT the primary cause of GW now or for instance during the Medieval period when it was actually warmer than today. Mankind was neither responsible for the little ice age either or the warming taking place on Mars or Pluto today. Greenland was called Greenland for a reason, it was green. The Vikings lived there during the Medieval warming period and it was hot enough to cultivate grapes. Did the Vikings drive SUV`s !?

-CO2 does not antedate temperature increases. Temperature increases first, CO2 follows behind by up to 800 years.

-There is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb almost all of the IR in the main carbon dioxide absorption bands.Added CO2 would still only cause an incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption.Each time CO2 is doubled the increase in temperature will be less than previously simply because all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It`s been calculated that CO2 absorbance is 376 units per km for 380 ppm. Doubling CO2 at it`s absorbtion bandwidth would only cause an increase IR absorbtion of about 0.17%.

-Clouds and greenhouse gases (GHGs), like water vapor and carbon dioxide, absorb radiation of varying wavelengths emitted by the earth. Some of these absorption bands overlap. In a sense, clouds and the various GHGs “compete” to absorb the earth’s radiation. Because of this competition, the heat-trapping potentials of clouds and GHGs don’t simply add up in a linear fashion.
-As explained in greater detail on the Department of Energy Web site, there is — and has been since before the industrial revolution — enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to absorb about 36 percent of the radiation emitted by the earth. But because of the “competition” for the earth’s radiation from clouds and other GHGs, the heat-trapping contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is reduced to about 12 percent. “By itself, however, carbon dioxide is capable of trapping three times as much radiation as it actually does in the earth’s atmosphere,” the DOE said. Adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then, can do little to trap more of the earth’s radiation and so won’t contribute much to higher temperatures or more global warming.

-Temperatures have both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric CO2 has been rising. CO2 only plays a very minor part in climate change and man-made CO2, even less.

-Spending billions if not trillions to redistribute wealth(Kyoto) and creating a precursor to a command and control economy only to reduce the earth`s temperature by about 0.003055225 °C by the year 2050 or so, is just not worth it.

-" Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance."
Jacques Chirac at The Hauge 2000

-The IPCC claimed climate change to be "very likely" 90% man-made. All scientific statistical tests are subject to a 95% confidence interval and must be proven with objective data and analysis Therefore, the IPCC`s “very likely” claim is opnion, not scientific fact.

-National Research Council report on the UN`s IPCC/Mann chart stated that Mann`s method was biased towards producing hockey stick-shaped temp. chart, that uncertainties had been underestimated. In otherwords, the UN`s IPCC Temp. chart was false.

-Last year the National Academies convened a committee and asked scientists to model temperatures from a thousand years ago to within 0.5 °C (0.9 °F). None claimed they could, except for Mr. "hockey stick" himself, Mike Mann. And we all know his "hockey stick" temp. chart has been debunked long ago,regardless of "peer review" aka, fellow travellers.

-Climate models are programmed to overstate potential warming response to enhanced greenhouse forcing by a huge margin.

-The 2007 IPCC Summary for Policy Makers (pols) was released before the report itself so that " Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter. See Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, p4/15 "
They released the IPCC's the political conclusions first, and then will adjust the actual science to fit them.

-Climate change related projects accounted for over 25% of the 3-year total reported grants and contributions received by 10 of the top-20 institutions. For 6 organizations, climate change grants accounted for 50% of their reported grants and contributions received.

-Of the list of recipients of those private funds reveals that the vast majority are spent by groups favoring restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions and believe that climate change requires dramatic government action.

-The U.S. federal government spent nearly $2 billion to support climate change science programs in 2004.

-Global alarmists are dependant upon these funds and must continue to produce doomsday scenarios.

Yo! Joey, you forgot to credit your souce...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1910503/posts

Good for him. He was using his free speech that you Americans tout about so much.

We hear so much about "Freedom of Speech" from down there when it comes to protesting the war, protesting the President or whatever but when someone has an opinion that differs from your own, suddenly he shouldn't be allowed to say anything!

So, is it freedom for all, or just freedom for some?

Who let all the wing nuts in?

oops, source...

Good for him. He was using his free speech that you Americans tout about so much.

We hear so much about "Freedom of Speech" from down there when it comes to protesting the war, protesting the President or whatever but when someone has an opinion that differs from your own, suddenly he shouldn't be allowed to say anything!

So, is it freedom for all, or just freedom for some?

The DNT's got a poll!

Very well done Joey Mathers and presented in an excellent manner. However, I believe that the Gore worshippers will not change their minds. In spite of excellent efforts such as yours the Gories will not allow you to confuse them with true facts. As their god Gore has said "A zebra will not change its spots". These fools should look at the facts and come to the realization that there are always false prophets preaching doom and gloom. The mindless sheep are too lazy to actually look into the each doomsday scare and research tough questions such as "Who has something to gain from spining this into a panic"? Any of these sheep ever notice that there is always some scare running rampant across this country? Should you and I start a panic about the sun dying? I bet we too could get rich about creating a panic about this truism.

If you want to complain to the station, these guys are the two head honchos.

Robert Wilmers and David Jensch.

If their email scheme is the same as Karl Spring's (I read a email appology sent to a friend) their addresses should be rwilmers@northlandsnewscenter.com and djensch@northlandsnewscenter.com

Let the northland's voice be heard!

Well while you are patting yourself on the back I am really curious to see that data cited correctly and not just in a bulleted (accept it its true) format. And a simple question, if all this is global warming stuff is so full of bullshit as many of you are implying then why do the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that it is occurring and that it is partially a result of human activity? This is not a minority view, it is not something that changed since Gore's movie, hell even the current Whitehouse folks admit that it is occurring. I understand there are those who don't feel important unless they can buy into a conspiracy and feel as if they are oppressed, but come on really? citing FreeRepublic? That's pretty weak sauce.

First of all let me state that I am a professional scientist employed in the management of Lake Superior ecosystems. Science is not black and white as has been suggested. Our understanding of Global Climate change has and is evolving and has been for nearly 30 years. I studied the theory back in college in the 80’s. Our understanding of Climate change has increased greatly since Gore’s movie. The body of evidence is immense and diverse and it points to the same thing, humans are influencing our global climate. I respect your rights to your opinions and free speech but these opinions fly in the face of literally thousands of studies demonstrating climate change. In addition to climatological studies there are studies that range from soil functions to aquatic ecosystem shifts to forest compositional changes. The results are the same; climate change is real and is accelerating. I wish I could benefit politically of financialy from climate change but this reality is only going to make my work more difficult. Managing Lake Superior fisheries, forests and streams will cost us more money and time that we do not have. Already we have to adapt our management strategies. In addition lower water levels could affect shipping which will affect the economy here in Duluth. All is not gloom and doom we can do something about Climate Change but we need to be willing to act. Fortunately action will in many cases save use money in the long run. Duluth’s signing on to the Cities for Climate Change Protection will save the city money which ultimately benefits taxpayers.

Getting specifically to the comments made, derogatory comments benefit no one. Karl Spring may be a great meteorologist but he is not a Climatologist. It is unfortunate that he commented on movie he did not see. An often used analogy is that weather dictates what clothes you wear today; Climate dictates what clothes you keep in you closet. While these sciences are closely related they are not the same. Karls comments may reflect his opinion as a weather forecaster but there are not based in the science of a climatologist. The science of Global Climate Change is bigger than Al Gore. It is about our willingness to examine and collect data about our environment, come up with theories, and thoroughly test those theories and report the implication of their results. That is the job of the scientist. This is not about opinions but a systematic application of principles to discern the facts.

Implementing policies is up to you.

I find it very disheartening that people in Duluth say what ever they want about our president, going so far as to put "Buck Fush" signs in their windows and on their lawns, but God forbid the local weather man refers to Al Gore as a "nut." And people are getting really upset with him...saying they won't watch him on the news anymore? Come on people!! What's wrong with having an opinion? I think we can all agree that there are worse things he could have called him. I'm pretty sure that our freedom of speech includes everyone in the USA; even local weather reporters.

I find it very disheartening that people in Duluth say what ever they want about our president, going so far as to put "Buck Fush" signs in their windows and on their lawns, but God forbid the local weather man refers to Al Gore as a "nut." And people are getting really upset with him...saying they won't watch him on the news anymore? Come on people!! What's wrong with having an opinion? I think we can all agree that there are worse things he could have called him. I'm pretty sure that our freedom of speech includes everyone in the USA; even local weather reporters.

Odd that you used the phrase "our president" and "Al Gore" in the same sentence.

He's a public figure. He can say whatever he wants, but at a greater cost.

"Managing Lake Superior fisheries, forests and streams will cost us more money and time that we do not have". Who says we need to manage these? Only those who can profit from doing so. More scientists, more administrators, more tax dollars right? What is wrong with letting nature take its course and not meddle with it? There will be winners and there will be losers, just like has happened for millenia before humans arrived on the scene. There is no way that insignificant little humans are going to stop Climatic Change (thank you for using the proper terminology) and maintain the status quo. You know darn well that there IS NO STATUS QUO for the climate. It is true that human activity can add to the rate of change, but to what extent, THAT is where the real debate should focus and at what cost to society for minimizing that minute addition. Are we talking of an additional .001% or a .01% increase in the RATE of change due to human activity and what will it cost to cut our .001% contribution in half. I do not hear any scientist being clear about HOW MUCH human activity is ADDING to the rate of change. Profit and spotlight greedy individuals (Gore) are taking advantage of the fact that scientists know there is change happening but there is no proof of how much humans are affecting the change, so humans must be responsible for all of the change, right? That is where the scare tactics usde by the spinmasters come to light and the whole agrument on "Global Warming" due to human activity falls apart. How about the third world countries that are developing heavy industries with little or no controls on emmisions? We could eliminate half of the USA contribution to the .001% rate but be easily offset by the 3rd world industries that are polluting air and water.
It is the old "guns and butter" debate all over again. How much of our limited resources do we really want to devote to fighting one battle vrs. allocating those dollars to improving some other aspect of our society.

Oh great. Not the old "guns and butter" debate AGAIN.

wow....well you folks convinced me I was wrong. I now believe that global warming is a hype and that it's all Al Gore's fault.

Thanks for helping me out.

First off, lets keep up with the derogatory comments. Nothing really gets me off like making
someone feel inferior to me.

Secondly, I think whether Gore is right or wrong, if the earth will fry or freeze, if the acid rain is giving us a bum tomato crop, or if the ozone layer is swallowing up the moon...we should all do our best to gather information from MULTIPLE sources, debate with many people, and do our best to think about our environment.

Most the knowledge that we have about accumulated in the past few hundred years has been proven wrong, been re-articulated and reformulated a dozen times over...but somehow we have not fuck everything up for the next few hundred [thousand?] years.

So...read National Geographic, listen to Al Gore, hear out Karl Spring, get educated about public policy (and not just through far right/left websites), etc. etc. etc. and do something.

but yeah i don't know why K-spring would say that.

plus i always see him giving the women anchors "eyes".

REX,

FYI:FreeRepublic is Libertarian.

Those bullet points are mine except for the evisceration of alogre`s book.

Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet.
False, Problem is you cannot invent something that already existed.

Al Gore claimed to have discovered Love Canal. False.

Al Gore claimed that A Love Story was based on he and Tipper.False.

AlGore claimed no controlling legal authority taking money in Buddhist temples. False.

AlGore`s mansion uses up to 20X the electricity of a normal household.

AlGore`s claims he offsets his electrical use by purchasing "carbon credits". Problem is, he buys them from jis own company, essentially, investing in his own company.

The Sun still and always will drive temperature changes even though Junk Scientists claim that relationship ended 20 years ago:

http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf/view

I'm not wearing pants.

K Joey we get it you hat Al Gore, point received loud and clear. But seriously you have shot yourself in the foot a few times with your bullet points some of which are so easily refuted, known, and accepted as false you really don't exude much credibility.

cheers

Joey, I just used Al's internet and Googled the first sentence of your post. Low and behold the exact same spiel was on the site I URL'd . Thanks for clearing that up? I love the internet political cut and paste arguments, makes research and interpretation a thing of the past. I never made reference to any affiliation of the URL?

Rex, Edgeways:

Dealt with you truthers before and you pikers are easily dispatched with aplomb each and every time.

So, bring it on!

Your + feedback loop theory is false. Temps have not increased since `96.

CO2 does not and never has antedated temp increases. Not in ice core nor stomata data.

Your whole theory of man-made CO2 as THE cause of AGW doesn`t even make it out of the starting gate.

Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=485336&in_page_id=1811

NASA`s James Hansen,left-wing stooge caught using either false or flawed data
---------------------------

How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely “NASA whistleblower” standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros’ Open Society Institute, which gave him “legal and media advice”? That’s right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros’ flagship “philanthropy,” by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI’s “politicization of science” program.

That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly “censored” spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda. Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage.

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275526219598836

If Al Gore says we're in terrible trouble don't believe it. If someone says Al Gore is full of shit don't believe it.
Don't believe anything you hear. We're in a war of information and everyone is trying to top each other w/bullshit.
Find out what the score is for yourself. I know what I know, not from what people tell me, but what I've found out for myself,and that is for me to know and you to find out. Let them that have ears hear and them that have eyes see. The remainder will simply have to go fuck themselves when the truth be finally told.

PS rex and edgeways,

First rex.Typical leftist who doesn`t know jack. You google and find my post at FR. Who do you think Para-ord45 is ? Don`t know? PM me at FR and I`ll reply to you.

Secondly edgeway, I do not hate algore. Don`t know him, never met him. I hate his Big Lie. His propaganda has surpassed that of Leni Riefenstahls`.
You wanna go toe to toe trying to argue algore`s agw to the facts, let`s have at it.

nah Joey, go ahead whinge on man, whinge on. Everybody else is wrong you are right, sleep tight lill buddy.

Damn; truther, piker, and a leftist. If that's the case; I'll certainly bow out to an enraged .45 toting libertarian. I'm kind of scared now...

Joey, what have you been up to?
From Buzz.Duluth:

Nutty poll

Duluth TV meterologist Karl Spring has bravely waded into the global climatological debate.
The KBJR weatherman isn't the first to brand Al Gore as a "left wing nut." A Google search on the subject shows 11,100 other references.
In case you're wondering, the duluthnewstribune.com poll pitting Karl Spring and Al Gore has had some wild swings, most recently "for" a nuttier Gore.
Why? One reason is the poll has been "freepd" by freerepublic.com, a "very popular (and, warning: addictive) conservative news and discussion forum."

I'm still not wearing pants.

edgeay/rex,

Been here,seen it.

Leftists who can regurgitate their pablum but cannot debate detailed specifics.

I accept your implied refusal to debate.

Prediction:

algore predicted the a few years ago the end of the world would begin in 10 years. So in about 8 years those of use grounded in reality are going to have one big guffaw at at all you " the world is goin gto end unless you do everything we say".

oh pleasepleaseplease tell me Bill O'Really's sock puppet is going home soon.

Finally someone has the guts in middle America to say what they feel. Is it possible that this is all politics and not true objective science? As a longtime DFL, I to think Al Gore is a Far-left NUT job.

yo joey
your use of labels (right/left,etc.)certainly distinguishes you from the rest & limits your identity to one of a kind. i commend you on your extensive research & your remarkable talent for caring. far be it for me to tell the truth, but this one thing i know: them that know don't speak & them that speak don't know. try leaving the world behind for a spell & doctor your mortal soul w/refreshing ideals of a universe that is a total abortion & will end as intended weather you know it or not. i'm not talking about anything left or right here so you might stumble on my directives. things are not what they appear. seldom have they ever been. thinking you know jack shit doesn't change a thing. it's all going the way it will whatever your left nutjobs or your right thinkers do or say. have a good time researching that,tiger. go git em.

DNT POLL: we've covered this before... "This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane."

And stop feeding the trolls.

IF one is functionally illiterate - hasn't read Gore's book; knew not who won the Noble Peace Prize - then what more should one expect from what's-his-name, one of the local weathermen?

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

OK everybody...I watched the movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." Here's my review: I agree global warming is occurring, particulary in the last 125 years, due largely to the industrial revolution. I never debated that point. I was shocked that in the movie, the way Gore explained the greenhouse effect was to use a 5 minute segment from 'FUTURAMA' (a Matt Groening cartoon from FOX...isn't that ironic?) showing himself explaining the science to a little girl whose ice cream cone had melted. That's how to explain the greenhouse effect? Really? I was also surprised that about 20 minutes of the movie (in different segments) was devoted to him losing the election to Bush. What does that have to do with global warming? Every time they showed him moving around the world, he was in a limousine or a jet. That seems hypocritical. I would have rather seen him on a horse. And, every time he showed charts and graphs (there were lots), they always went straight up at the end, into the future. That is speculation...not fact. I do NOT question global warming. I DO question the science he used for this film, and the tremendous liberties he took extrapolating unknown quantities into the next 50 to 100 years. I found the film self-serving and very loose with the so-called facts. Plus, watch it again...he rarely attributes any facts to anybody, or any scientific group. He has lots of 'they say,' and 'we found.' I need more empirical data than that.

I apologize for one thing...calling him 'a left wing nut.' That was wrong.

Karl Spring: Chief Meteorologist - Northland's NewsCenter

p.s. SHOWERS LIKELY SUNDAY, CLEARING TO BEGIN MONDAY

Karl Spring,
Coming from a 'lefty' here, yes, your apology is accepted. And as far as nuts go, right or left....oak trees from little acorns grow.

Advice which I carry in a back pocket of my mind (yet don't always follow it, no)..."What others would have done as well, do not do it; what others would have said as well as you, do, do not say it; what another would have written as well as you, do not write it. Be faithful to that which exists nowhere but in yourself and make yourself indespensable." Andre Gide
....Rachel Buber from "the unaffiliated left"

Karl,

That was very big of you. It would be easier and more convenient to ignore ranting on a local blog. As the originator of this post I never imagined the reaction it would get. I wanted to promote dignity and civility in public dialogue.

I thank you for taking the high ground. Apology accepted.

And thanks for the forecast.

OK....just so those of you that read this on Sunday (and beyond) know, the movie review and apology was from me. The letter with the forecast that followed a few minutes later was not.

Thanks, Karl

Thanks for the comments and actually watching the film Karl....

I hope we all recognize that "Inconvenient Truth" is just a movie and not a scientific dissertation. I commend Al Gore for bringing the issue into centerstage where wackos from ALL directions can critique it. Like many of us, he needs to work on correcting some hypocritical behavior.

As for Karl, I can breathe a sigh of relief as I enjoy watching your weather segments here and, several years ago, in the Twin Cities.

Coming late to the game, but:

1) Interesting, that the raving right-wingers attack Al Gore and not the scientists whose work he cites.

2) Interesting, that attempts to "debunk" climate change and "An Inconvient Truth" have themselves have been shot down: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php

3) Interesting, that the guy who pushed the lawsuit is a known industrialist and bankroller of anti-environmentalism, including at least one political party based on climate-change denialism: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/19/43056/159

Karl Spring,

The Earth warms, the Earth cools. Happened before and will happen again.

To state that man is the primary reason for an increase in mean temp increases is false as Al Gore attempted t oimply in his powerpoint movie. To say so would imply accepting the runaway + feedback loop theory of CO2 driving temperature increases.

CO2 never has antedated temperature increases and never will. It in fact lags behind temp increases by as much as 800 years.

The runaway + feedback loop theory is proven false because temperatures have not increased since 2005/2006.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

" Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance."

Jacques Chirac at The Hauge 2000

So called man-made global warming is merely a trojan horse for the marxist left. Warming, through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the marxist utopian dream,through environmentalism, of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population's eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally(aka, carbon trading).

Joey Mathers used to be so adorable as the Beaver. I wonder what twisted him?

Joey Mathers: A hot tip for you to check out:

Get your message out to a more receptive audience. Thanks.

Aren't you concerned how frequenting this Marxist Web site will look at the next John Birch Society meeting?

umm...Eddie...Jerry Mathers was the Beaver.

This is the 100th comment

My error, the correct paragraph should have read :

The runaway + feedback loop theory is proven false because temperatures have not increased since 1998/1999

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

"The runaway + feedback loop theory is proven false because temperatures have not increased since 2005/2006."

global warming detractors think awfully small when they're trying to debunk imperical data related to climate change. I think it kinda plays right along with their "Instant Karma Gotta Have Everything Yesterday Bigger Is Better Screw Everyone Else But Me" mentality. If that doesn't work they resort to using derogative names like "Marxist" which are complete misnomers. It's like trying to link Iraq with the war on terror...or Fascism with Communism.

2005/2006...365 days (roughly)...try expanding your comparisons by decades. instead of days.

I'm not certain that the emphasis is on warming and cooling on a natural basis. Rather that said change has been accelerated in recent years by higher outputs of carbon based emissions.

Anyone who says that we can keep doing what we're doing to the environment and come out on the back end of it without some sort of catastrophic repercussion really has their head in the sand.

Jerry, here are a couple of facts for you, just because you're so fond of putting forth your own:

FACT: There are more industrial based emissions polluting the atmosphere now than at any other point in history.

FACT: Worldwide deforestation is greatly hampering the earth's ability to process and convert CO2 emissions.

Do you actually think that type of activity doesn't come with some sort of negative return? Or is it that the results of this activity are so far off in the future that it doesn't matter?

sounds just a bit selfish...

I wonder how many of these "expert" detractors of global warming are paid off by large corporations for their "opinions."

In the end, arguing about it isn't going to do any good at all...I'm not going to change your mind, and you're certainly not going to change mine. Your argument against is as full of holes as for...at best it's a wait and see.

ZRA,

Try reading my corrections before posting the usual left-wing Gaia zealotry.

The hard CRU data does not lie.Data from January of 2007 reveal the following temperature anomalies from 1998 to 2006 were 0.526, 0.302, 0.277, 0.406, 0.455, 0.465, 0.444, 0.475, 0.422.

On a graph that would point down, not up.

So the theory of a runaway CO2 + feedback lop theory is categorically FALSE.

Last time:

CO2 DOES NOT AND NEVER HAS ANTEDATED TEMPERATURE INCREASES AND IN FACT LAG BEHIND TEMPERATURE INCREASES BY S MUCH AS 800 YEARS.

AGW by man-made CO2=Lie

the temperature anomalies from 1998 to 2006 were 0.526, 0.302, 0.277, 0.406, 0.455, 0.465, 0.444, 0.475, 0.422.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

Mathers: try reading what time people's comments were posted before you accuse them of not reading yours. Obviously you two commented at about the same time. You just lost credibility.

" FACT: There are more industrial based emissions polluting the atmosphere now than at any other point in history."

By emissions you mean what specifically, CO2 alone?

Once again:

-Temperatures have both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric CO2 has been rising. CO2 only plays a very minor part in climate change and man-made CO2, even less.

-Spending billions if not trillions to redistribute wealth(Kyoto) and creating a precursor to a command and control economy only to reduce the earth`s temperature by about 0.003055225 °C by the year 2050 or so, is just not worth it.

BERV,

If both of you had read all of my posts ( October 20, 2007 01:13 AM ) you both would have saved yourself complete em