More Global Warming

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Aug 29, 2008.

  1. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  2. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Gore admits "he failed badly" as opposed to "lied his ass
    off". .....................................

    ‘Planet Has Cooled Since Bush Took Office’ – Scientists Continue Dissenting – Gore Admits 'I've failed badly' - Global Sea Ice GROWS!
    Global Warming Theory has ‘failed consistently and dramatically’
  3. chev

    chev Nightcrawler

    Global warming = natural cycle of the earth.
    Gore is a laughing stock. I think most informed know that by now.:wink2:
    Like most politicians, he has/had an agenda. $$$$$$

    :surprised::surprised:"The sky is falling, run for you lives"!!!!!!:rolleyes2:
    Now they have Noah Wyle doing commercials about the shrinking arctic ice and how the polar bears are losing their hunting grounds., when in fact, the ice is growing.
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2008
  4. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Noah should've never left E.R.

    The Librarian was a sucky series of movies IMO too. :sad-little:
  5. stringerman85

    stringerman85 New Member

    Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): "There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat." Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona."

    Haha that's funny
  6. stringerman85

    stringerman85 New Member

    They say 2008 is the coldest year since 2000, I did notice this year we had a longer winter here and a not so hot summer (missouri) ...In fact we had the most snowfall here since 1992-93, the summer we had mostly 80's with a few 90 days, Very rare. Could just be a one year thing, Or maybe there was no such thing as global warming, For all we know the earth could have warmed up hundreds and thousands of years ago for a short period of time before reliable weather data was around
  7. Channahon

    Channahon New Member

    No global warming in the Northeast, who just got hammered with an ice storm, and some other storms are getting ready to hit the West coast.
  8. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  9. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    This thread looks like the climate equivalent of Custer's last stand. Doubters seem to have tried to find and validate every last skeptic on Earth. But by all means, go ahead, knock yourselves out, get together to talk to each other, it goes for good entertainment. :laughing:

    Answers to Global Warming Skeptics

    Like the debate over Intelligent Design, the controversy over global warming is being fought over in the popular media even though the consensus of the scientists who are actually researching climate change is that humans are having a greater impact on global warming than natural sources. As a measure of the certainty of this, major insurance companies are now revising their business projections to take the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change into account. (Insurance companies know very well how to make money on projections of real future events and they are not going to be swayed by any so-called "propaganda from tree-hugging environmentalists"—if the science conclusions are good enough for the insurance companies, then you may want to think twice, three times, many times, before discounting the IPCC conclusions.)
    The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community (i.e., those who are actively engaged in climate research, publish their results in peer-reviewed journals, and allow their conclusions to be tested by others) is that the global warming that is happening is mostly human-caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Despite this consensus there is considerable debate among the general public. There is big disconnect between the scientists and the general public. The popular media is usually interested in fanning the flames of controversy instead of educating the public. Therefore, they will look for opponents of the scientific consensus to provide a "balanced view" and give equal credence to the global warming skeptics. The voices of the few (unqualified) are magnified to be equal to the voices of the many. Sigh!

    Rather than giving arguments to counter all of the claims of the global warming skeptics on this page, here are links to those who have already done that work. All of the links to external sources will appear in a new window.
  10. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    "How to Talk to A Global Warming Skeptic" by Coby Beck might be helpful in figuring out how to talk with skeptics of global warming. Beck is not a climate researcher; he is an engineer working on artificial intelligence but I think he provides a good layman's take on the debate in the general public.
    DeSmogBlog was created to clears the public relations (PR) campaign that is trying to cloud the climate change science. They are very familiar with PR tactics.
    The Truth About Denial feature article in the August 13, 2007 issue of Newsweek includes a history of the global warming denial movement. A number of postings in the comments area continue the same old denial arguments illustrating the strategy of trying to win a debate by shouting louder than your opponent. The old denial arguments are central to the "The Great Global Warming Swindle" discussed below.
    In March 2007, the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) broadcast a show called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" that seemed to counter all that "Inconvenient Truth" stuff from Al Gore, et al with experts (including some with PhDs) claiming that the human-caused global warming was just a scam. Though broadcast overseas, it has been viewed by many thousands of people in the United States courtesy of internet TV (and will probably be broadcast on the Fox channel sometime soon). Needless to say, there were many problems with the "documentary". Here are a few links to critique the show:
    • Chrisopher Merchant is a lecturer in Earth Observation in the School of GeoSciences at the University of Edinburgh. His research interests are in remote sensing and modeling of air-sea interaction. Merchant's analysis of the Swindle film shows how the film's editor and speakers use every trick in the book to attempt to deceive the viewers of the Swindle film. One logical fallacy Merchant points out is that the film uses the fact that the Earth's climate has always been changing (a correct statement) to "prove" that humans could not now be cause global warming (an illogical conclusion).
    • George Marshall's posting "The Great Channel Four Swindle" examines the credentials and probable biases of the experts using in the Swindle show.
    • RealClimate's "Swindled!" posting. RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.
    • DeSmogBlog's play-by-play critique. Also see Jim Hoggan's editorial about the PR firms involved in confusing the general public.
    Still Don't Agree with the Climate Change Scientists?

    If you still think the conclusions of the IPCC and numerous other science organizations are invalid, the climate science is flawed, etc., then how about considering economic and national security reasons? Energy from fossil fuel burning (oil, coal, natural gas, etc.) is getting more and more expensive since it is a non-renewable resource that is shrinking while the demand for energy is ever increasing. Oil reserves in the most optimistic of scenarios will survive another few decades at most. The US produces less than a third of the crude oil it consumes (the percentage has steadily decreased over the years). A sizable chunk of the United States supply of oil comes from countries that are politically unstable or questionable or have less than warm relations with the United States. While the top two oil exporters are friendly to the U.S. (Canada and Saudi Arabia), the top 15 exporters list from the U.S. Department of Energy includes countries such as Venezuela, Iraq, and Russia. The other exporters will also feel more and more pressure to export to other countries such as China and India as their energy needs grow as a result of their conversion to a Western-style economic system. If you add in the health costs that arise from the respiration and ingestion of the by-products of fossil fuel burning, the costs will be prohibitive (especially as China and India ramp up to Western levels of per capita consumption).
    "America's addiction to oil"

    What Can You Do?

    The world would get warmer even if we were to stop all fossil-fuel burning now because of the time it takes for natural processes to get rid of the human-generated excess of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and halocarbons). Does that mean it is hopeless? No. We can still prevent the warming from becoming catastrophic. We can lessen the amount of eventual warming. No one thing will be the answer that saves us. A number of simple, smaller things added together will be the answer. In the long run, the things we do now to slow the growth of greenhouse gas increases will not only prevent catastrophe, it will save us a lot of money and make the world more politically stable. Consider this like saving for retirement or like investing in the stock market for the long-term: invest some money now to reap a greater reward later.
    • The Princeton Environmental Institute has created a Carbon Mitigation Initiative that divides up the difference between a "business as usual" carbon rise and a stabilization at 2005 levels of carbon rise into "Wedges" using currently available technology that is commercially produced.
    Return to Human Role in the Carbon Cycle

    Go to Astronomy Notes home
  11. tourists24

    tourists24 Well-Known Member

    I dont have to study this issue any longer.... the night I was watching Leno I think it was and Al Gore said the debate is over... well that settled it...

    D... I only read one of the myth arguments from above to realize I didnt have to go any further. The one pertaining to man made global warming at the poles. The only proof I saw saying man was most responsible was computer program models that say so. Sorry, I dont think this is undeniable proof that man is the problem. I will actually read through more though because unlike the ones who think the debate is over and it's time to turn our lives over to government spending, laws, and programs, I am not convinced either way for sure. It is possible to convince me, just havent seen it yet.

    I did want to see the explanation for polar bear population increase, but I couldnt get that one to come up.
  12. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

    Imagine living in a world where no one is allowed to think or act independently--only state-approved human responses are acceptable. To break the rule and engage in forbidden thought would result in terrible retribution, perhaps leading literally to ones destruction.

    The simple truth is there is no scientific consensus on Catastrophic "Human Caused" Global Warming. In fact, as the media frenzy screams global warming, there are a growing number of scientists who are expressing their doubts.

    Today, the Heidelberg Appeal has been signed by more than 4,000 scientists and leaders from 100 countries, including more than 70 Nobel Prize winners.

    Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth.

    Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science.

    Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
  13. 1989

    1989 Well-Known Member

    There must be global warming, two weeks ago it was 25 below. Today it's 25 degrees and 4 more inches of snow (another 5-8 predicted by morning)....That's a 50 degree difference in only 2 weeks.
  14. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Another Bush accomplishment the erradication of the global warming threat. Are there any limits to this mans talents?
  15. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Asthma inhalers being affected by Global Warming arguments.

    Snope's on Gore's energy efficent home

    And taking a que from Tie's funny comment (thanks for the laugh tie!)

    Al Gore's Generation Investment Management LLP is a UK Corporation.

    Where are the howls and cries of the democrat anti-NAFTA, WTO types to decry this? It's against the rules for Corp. America to move off shore but Gore get's a pass?

    BTW: Where does Gore pay his Carbon offsets too? Hint, it's a UK Corporation!

    CO2 IMO gets a bad rap and depending on the conditions, it can cause harmful effects. For example, CO2 may prove very useful in growth aquatic plants in aquariums but in excess can pose a threat to fish and micro-organism. FAQ.pdf

    But is CO2 a purely evil gas that should be eliminated at all costs, mostly on the backs of the public itself? Seems Los Alamos National Lab doesn't view CO2 in that regard. Here's what they say direct from their peroidic tables.

    I often find it funny that the anti-CO2 crowd are in such a twist over CO2 that they go so far as to make statements like "CO2 is a pollutant". Even the Supreme Court has decreed the same and yes the very same court where 7 of the 9 justices are republican appointees.

    If we are to eliminate CO2 we must eliminate all forms of life because in order to eliminate CO2 from occuring, you would have to eliminate all Carbon and all Oxygen because it is these 2 components of the perodic tables that naturally combine to form CO2 in the first place. I also believe that to concentrate on CO2 alone is like burying one's "head in the sand" as so rightly pointed out at this link.

    Listen Mr. Creedy, hear the music playing? I believe I have a train to catch!
  16. Baba gounj

    Baba gounj pensioner

    I have a simple question can anyone tell me just what is the correct temperature of the earth ?
    In order for global warming or global cooling to exist , there has to be a point at which the globe has a mean temperature .
  17. tourists24

    tourists24 Well-Known Member

    WK,,, why do you keep coming on here putting all your propaganda up? Didnt you see, Gore has said it several times now: "THE DEBATE IS OVER"... What keeps getting into you folks? :P
  18. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Actually its not quite a consensus amongst Scientists either . Here a quick link on the subject from wikopedia.

    Many climatic scientist have been pushing the global warming histeria in an effort to garner government funding to fight this overstated threat. Notice I say overstated. I recognize man can affect the overall climate but nowhere near the degree the climatic arlarmist have stated.

    This year has been a blessing as the earth somehow cooled off dramatically with all those greenhouse forces supposedly in affect. Will the climatic alarmist now conceed that there is more affecting the forces of weather then mankind? Or will they continue to retreat in bewilderment as they have this year?:happy-very:
  19. chev

    chev Nightcrawler

    Global warming = Big $$. :wink2:

    omg! Text in blue AND underlined........well I'll be damned. It must be true.:crazy2:
  20. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Even though the overall subject matter of the blog post quoted below has not connection to the topic here, the last sentence does have a humorous one.


    As to Butler's point about Mud Flats Kansas, this is why all politics and political power should remain local so that one vote does have power!