The manmade global warming myth

[TAPPER]

Originally posted by: Logan13
it seems that everyone is an expert on the matter.

Not from where I’m sitting. Most people are clueless when it comes to topics like general science let alone something like advanced climatography. I’m not saying a person needs intimate knowledge of the subject to form an opinion, but judging from some of the posts (not just in this thread) there are quite a few people who don’t even possess a fundamental understanding of what is going on. Debating these people is similar to having a conversation with a toddler IMO.

[Kärnfysikern]

Not from where I’m sitting. Most people are clueless when it comes to topics like general science let alone something like advanced climatography. I’m not saying a person needs intimate knowledge of the subject to form an opinion, but judging from some of the posts (not just in this thread) there are quite a few people who don’t even possess a fundamental understanding of what is going on. Debating these people is similar to having a conversation with a toddler IMO.

Usualy the less someone knows about a scientific topic the more sure they are about their oppinion

Thats probably the reason why its impossible to get a straight answer out of professors

[Logan13]

Not from where I’m sitting. Most people are clueless when it comes to topics like general science let alone something like advanced climatography. I’m not saying a person needs intimate knowledge of the subject to form an opinion, but judging from some of the posts (not just in this thread) there are quite a few people who don’t even possess a fundamental understanding of what is going on. Debating these people is similar to having a conversation with a toddler IMO.

you do realize that I was being sarcastic....

[Logan13]

You make it sound like someone just said yersterday "ohh it must be co2" and every expert in the world got enchanted by the idea and started preaching it like gospel without criticaly examining the hypothesis.

Just like every other scientific theory AGW has been worked on for quite some time and if there was obvious flaws in the theory it would have been discounted long ago.

But the climate experts do NOT claim everything is known, they readily admit that there are plenty of processes not yet accounted for in the climate models. They cant even include variations in cloud cover and how it ties in to climate change yet!

The truth is neither you nor me knows if its a good theory or not. What I cant understand is your total refusal to even entertain the though that it might be correct or poiting in the right direction?

Some call the debate "over", see bold.

The Global-Warming Debate Isn't Over
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...bate_isnt.html

First he won the Oscar -- then the Nobel Peace Prize. He's being called a "prophet."

Impressive, considering that one of former Vice President Al Gore's chief contributions has been to call the debate over global warming "over" and to marginalize anyone who disagrees. Although he favors major government intervention to stop global warming, he says, "the climate crisis is not a political issue. It is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity".

Give me a break.

If you must declare a debate over, then maybe it's not. And if you have to gussy up your agenda as "our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level," then it deserves some skeptical examination.

Everyone has heard that Earth's atmosphere is heating up, it's our fault, and it's a crisis. No wonder 86 percent of Americans think global warming is a serious problem and 70 percent want the government to do something now.

But is it a crisis? The globe is warming, but will it be catastrophic? Probably not.

In "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore says that "sea levels worldwide would go up 20 feet."

But the group that shared last week's Nobel Prize, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says in a hundred years, the oceans might rise 7 to 24 inches.

Gore also talks about drowning polar bears. He doesn't mention that the World Conservation Union and the U.S. Geological Survey say that today most populations of polar bears are stable or increasing.

And while man's greenhouse gasses may increase warming, it's not certain that man caused it. The most impressive demonstration in Gore's movie is the big graph of carbon-dioxide levels, which suggests that carbon levels control temperature. But the movie doesn't tell you that the carbon increases came after temperatures rose, hundreds of years later.

There's much more. A British court ruled that U.K. teachers could show Gore's documentary to students only if they also explain nine errors in the movie.

I wanted to ask Gore about that and other things, but he wouldn't talk to me. Why should he? He says "the debate is over."

"It's absurd for people to say that sort of thing," says Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute.

John Christy and Roy Spencer, who won NASA's Medal for Exceptional Achievement for figuring out how to get temperature data from satellites, agree that Earth has warmed. "The thing that we dispute is, is it because of mankind?" Spencer says.

Some scientists say the warming may be caused by changes in the sun, or ocean currents, or changes in cloud cover, or other things we don't understand. If it's all man's fault, why did the Arctic go through a warm period early last century? Why did Greenland's temperatures rise 50 percent faster in the 1920s than they are rising now?

The media rarely ask such questions.

The media also treat the IPCC as impartial scientists, but Reiter and Christy, who were members of the IPCC, say it is not what the public thinks it is. Many of the people involved in writing its report "are not scientists at all," Reiter says. "They were essentially activists." Members of groups like Greenpeace were involved. Skeptics were often ignored.

Christy says, "We were not asked to look at a particular statement and sign our names to it."

Adds Reiter, "I resigned."

But the IPCC still listed him as part of the so-called consensus of scientists. He says he had to threaten to sue to get his name removed from the report, although the IPCC denies that.

Skeptics like Reiter, Christy, Spencer and Tim Ball, who studies the history of climate change and heads the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, are often smeared as "deniers," lumped in with Holocaust deniers and accused of being "on the take" from energy businesses." Gore impugns skeptical scientists by saying "the illusion of a debate has been purchased."

But the scientists I interviewed don't get money from business.

Some get threatened. Ball received an e-mail that said: "You will not live long enough to see global warming!"

Is this what the global-warming debate has come to?

[TAPPER]

Originally posted by: Logan13

In "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore says that "sea levels worldwide would go up 20 feet."
But the group that shared last week's Nobel Prize, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says in a hundred years, the oceans might rise 7 to 24 inches.

Stossel has put quite a spin on this. What he fails to address are the underlying conditions Gore and the IPCC are referring to. Gore detailed specific conditions for a 20ft rise in sea level that are much different than those for the 7”- 24” rise projected in the IPCC report. You can’t compare apples to oranges and then make sensational claims about the difference in the results.

Furthermore, Stossel uses these IPCC results to refute Gore and then a few paragraphs later has ex-IPCC members commenting negatively as to the credibility of the findings. Stossel can’t have it both ways, it’s either a bunch of BS or it isn’t.

Originally posted by: Logan13

There's much more. A British court ruled that U.K. teachers could show Gore's documentary to students only if they also explain nine errors in the movie.

WRONG. The author(s) of the article use the word ‘errors’, but the Judge actually said “nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus.” Also, “Mr Justice Burton said the government could still send the film to schools - if accompanied by guidance giving the other side of the argument.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm)

Once again we find a sensational headline & statements that aren't supported by the facts.

[Kärnfysikern]

Some call the debate "over", see bold.

Yes and some people belive in witches, some people belive in jesus, some people claim theory of relativity is false. You can find "some" that say just about anything.

Like I said the honest researchers will admit there is plenty of things left to examine. That doesnt mean they cant be confident that human activity has a large impact though.

[Logan13]

Stossel has put quite a spin on this. What he fails to address are the underlying conditions Gore and the IPCC are referring to. Gore detailed specific conditions for a 20ft rise in sea level that are much different than those for the 7”- 24” rise projected in the IPCC report. You can’t compare apples to oranges and then make sensational claims about the difference in the results.

Furthermore, Stossel uses these IPCC results to refute Gore and then a few paragraphs later has ex-IPCC members commenting negatively as to the credibility of the findings. Stossel can’t have it both ways, it’s either a bunch of BS or it isn’t.
WRONG. The author(s) of the article use the word ‘errors’, but the Judge actually said “nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus.” Also, “Mr Justice Burton said the government could still send the film to schools - if accompanied by guidance giving the other side of the argument.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm)

Once again we find a sensational headline & statements that aren't supported by the facts.

The only sensationalizing going on is in Gore's underlying conditions, which go beyond worse case scenario and distributed as "facts".
A statement made as fact that is indeed not a fact is at the very least an error. Argue semantics all you want.

[Logan13]

Yes and some people belive in witches, some people belive in jesus, some people claim theory of relativity is false. You can find "some" that say just about anything.

Like I said the honest researchers will admit there is plenty of things left to examine. That doesnt mean they cant be confident that human activity has a large impact though.

there is more evidence that Iran wants nuclear weapons than there is that human's are impacting global warming.

[TAPPER]

Originally posted by: Logan13
The only sensationalizing going on is in Gore's underlying conditions, which go beyond worse case scenario and distributed as "facts". A statement made as fact that is indeed not a fact is at the very least an error. Argue semantics all you want.

Below is the transcript of the portion of the “Inconvenient Truth” in question. When the statement is not taken out of context one can clearly see the discussion was about a large ice shelf that melted much faster than scientists had predicted. In short, the scientists postulated it melted so quick because of the type of ice, Gore mentions West Antarctica is that type, and says “If this were to go, sea levels worldwide would go up 20 feet”.

Since the IPCC is basing its rise in sea level projections on statistical data (change in temperature) and Gore is referring to a worst case scenario, one that appears to have occurred at least once in recent times, we are back to comparing apples and oranges.



“This brings me to the second canary in the coal mine, Antarctica, the largest mass of ice on the planet by far. A friend of mine said in 1978, “If you see the break up of ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula, watch out, because that should be seen as an alarm bell for global warming. If you look at the peninsula up close, every place where you see one of these green blotches is an ice shelf larger than the state of Rhode Island that has broken up in just the last 15 to 20 years. I want to focus on just one of them called Larsen B. I want you to look at these black pools here. It makes it seem almost as if we are looking through the ice to the ocean beneath. But that’s an illusion. This is melting water that forms this pool. If you were flying over it in a helicopter, you’d see it 700 feet tall. They are so majestic, so massive. In the distance are the mountains, and just before the mountains is the shelf of the continent. This is floating ice, and there is land based ice on the down-slope of those mountains. From here to the mountains is about 20 to 25 miles. They thought this would be stable for about a hundred years, even with global warming. The scientists who study these ice shelves were absolutely astonished when they were looking at these images. Starting in January 31, 2002, in a period of 35 days, this ice shelf completely disappeared. They could not figure out how in the world this happened so rapidly. They went back to figure out where they had gone wrong. That’s when they focused on those pools of melting water. Even before they could figure out what had happened there, something else started going wrong. When the floating sea-based ice cracked up, it no longer held back the ice on the land. The land-based ice then started falling into the ocean. It was like letting the cork out of a bottle. There’s a difference between floating ice and land-based ice. It’s like the difference between an ice cube floating in a glass of water, which when it melts doesn’t raise the level of water in the glass, and a cube sitting atop a stack of ice cubes, which melts and flows over the edge. That’s why the citizens of these pacific nations had all had to evacuate to New Zealand.

I want to focus on West Antarctica, because it illustrates two factors about land-based ice and sea-based ice. It's a little of both. It's propped on tops of islands, but the ocean comes up underneath it. So if the ocean gets warmer, it has an impact on it. If this were to go, sea levels worldwide would go up 20 feet. They've measured disturbing changes on the underside of this ice sheet. It's considered relatively more stable, however, than another big body of ice that is roughly the same size. Greenland”





http://forumpolitics.com/blogs/2007/...th-transcript/
http://ninepoints.pbwiki.com/Sea%20level%20rise

[Tesla]

Here is an interesting chart a prominent climatologist and meteorologist showing that the earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling. We are in a warming cycle right now. Nothing unusual. Temperatures have clearly been warmer in the past during different periods. 1100 BC was very hot! Must've been all those chariot SUVs cruising around.

[Logan13]

Below is the transcript of the portion of the “Inconvenient Truth” in question. When the statement is not taken out of context one can clearly see the discussion was about a large ice shelf that melted much faster than scientists had predicted. In short, the scientists postulated it melted so quick because of the type of ice, Gore mentions West Antarctica is that type, and says “If this were to go, sea levels worldwide would go up 20 feet”.

Since the IPCC is basing its rise in sea level projections on statistical data (change in temperature) and Gore is referring to a worst case scenario, one that appears to have occurred at least once in recent times, we are back to comparing apples and oranges.



“This brings me to the second canary in the coal mine, Antarctica, the largest mass of ice on the planet by far. A friend of mine said in 1978, “If you see the break up of ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula, watch out, because that should be seen as an alarm bell for global warming. If you look at the peninsula up close, every place where you see one of these green blotches is an ice shelf larger than the state of Rhode Island that has broken up in just the last 15 to 20 years. I want to focus on just one of them called Larsen B. I want you to look at these black pools here. It makes it seem almost as if we are looking through the ice to the ocean beneath. But that’s an illusion. This is melting water that forms this pool. If you were flying over it in a helicopter, you’d see it 700 feet tall. They are so majestic, so massive. In the distance are the mountains, and just before the mountains is the shelf of the continent. This is floating ice, and there is land based ice on the down-slope of those mountains. From here to the mountains is about 20 to 25 miles. They thought this would be stable for about a hundred years, even with global warming. The scientists who study these ice shelves were absolutely astonished when they were looking at these images. Starting in January 31, 2002, in a period of 35 days, this ice shelf completely disappeared. They could not figure out how in the world this happened so rapidly. They went back to figure out where they had gone wrong. That’s when they focused on those pools of melting water. Even before they could figure out what had happened there, something else started going wrong. When the floating sea-based ice cracked up, it no longer held back the ice on the land. The land-based ice then started falling into the ocean. It was like letting the cork out of a bottle. There’s a difference between floating ice and land-based ice. It’s like the difference between an ice cube floating in a glass of water, which when it melts doesn’t raise the level of water in the glass, and a cube sitting atop a stack of ice cubes, which melts and flows over the edge. That’s why the citizens of these pacific nations had all had to evacuate to New Zealand.

I want to focus on West Antarctica, because it illustrates two factors about land-based ice and sea-based ice. It's a little of both. It's propped on tops of islands, but the ocean comes up underneath it. So if the ocean gets warmer, it has an impact on it. If this were to go, sea levels worldwide would go up 20 feet. They've measured disturbing changes on the underside of this ice sheet. It's considered relatively more stable, however, than another big body of ice that is roughly the same size. Greenland”





http://forumpolitics.com/blogs/2007/...th-transcript/
http://ninepoints.pbwiki.com/Sea%20level%20rise

That's nothing but gloom and doom politics.

[Logan13]

Here is an interesting chart a prominent climatologist and meteorologist showing that the earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling. We are in a warming cycle right now. Nothing unusual. Temperatures have clearly been warmer in the past during different periods. 1100 BC was very hot! Must've been all those chariot SUVs cruising around.

Good, I hate the winter.