Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Natural cycle is more accurate, here's just a few inaccuracies from Gore's Inconvenient Truth:
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government is unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
I realize that most conservatives first heard of global warming through Al Gore, so they pin it on him and hold his little movie / book as the Bible that must be discredited.
But this has been an intense focus of research far before Gore brought it into the mainstream.
It would be like focusing on a Michael Moore movie to embody the totality of industrial worker issues. That would be highly inadvisable, given Moore's clearly biased agenda. Doesn't mean there isn't truth in there, though.
The geological record--the physical evidence of the results of processes that have occurred on Earth since it was formed--provides evidence of climate changes similar in magnitude to those in the the above graph. This means during the history of the earth, there have been changes in global temperatures similar in size to these changes.
Funny how it always only takes a few posts of people's own links to discredit the conclusion they drew. Well done, Jill.
97% of climatologists agree that humans are responsible for the warming trend. The main scientific dissenters primarily focus on minerals in the earth (surprise, surprise).
97%. I'll hedge my bets with them until evidence dictates otherwise.
Let me start off with a quote:
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Benjamin Disraeli
Could you provide the list of all climatologists and a direct acknowledgment from them concerning AGW directly so we can run the numbers and check your claim?
I mean, I have seen some claims of such, but often much like the quote states, they are fabrications and manipulations used to support a specific bias.
I realize that most conservatives first heard of global warming through Al Gore, so they pin it on him and hold his little movie / book as the Bible that must be discredited.
But this has been an intense focus of research far before Gore brought it into the mainstream.
It would be like focusing on a Michael Moore movie to embody the totality of industrial worker issues. That would be highly inadvisable, given Moore's clearly biased agenda. Doesn't mean there isn't truth in there, though.
And by chance do you have any knowledge of where Gore got his data from? You do realize that Hansen was one of his advisers and also that Mann's work which produced the nifty hockey stick splice are one of the major contributors to the theory? You do realize that a large portion of the research you might quote is based on in one way or another their work? Ever heard of "garbage in, garbage out"?
Maybe you can explain the problems with GISS surface stations?
Maybe you can also explain to us the intracies of dendrochronology and how it is used to establish a coorelation to climate change. Maybe you could also explain the issues with MBH98 and how it has somehow "revised" itself in many different studies, but still contains the glaring assumptiveness it previously was found to contain?
And if that isn't enough, maybe we can discuss the issues with poor peer review policies concerning incestous relations or the issue with improper archiving of data and stone walling of data access which has been used to publish findings?
Funny how it always only takes a few posts of people's own links to discredit the conclusion they drew. Well done, Jill.
97% of climatologists agree that humans are responsible for the warming trend. The main scientific dissenters primarily focus on minerals in the earth (surprise, surprise).
97%. I'll hedge my bets with them until evidence dictates otherwise.
Also consider that 97% of climatologists are employed because of fears over global warming. Think of it this way, if you're a climatologist, and you're hired to conduct a scientific study concerning man-made climate change, and you come back and say "actually, it might not be such a big deal after all," you're probably going to lose your funding and thus your job (and be accused by environmentalist, and thus modern pop culture, of being in the pocket of big business). If you say "oh my god, we're all going to die," you're much more likely to receive more funding for your now "critically important" research, and maybe even a Nobel Prize or two.
Sorry man - i'm not a conservative or right wing echo chamber - but I do happen to have a different viewpoint than yours about global warming and it doesn't mean i'm dumb or anybody else is.
You can have whatever view you want, the facts are in: Global warming is happening. Pretending that a "cooling" phase is right around the corner is like thinking the Rapture is right around the corner.
In the meantime, the planet still has a fever that continues to get worse, and the adults would like to deal with it.
Global Warming is as much a hoax for the Eco-war as 911 was for the Iraqi war.
Both of which required mass-belief of the gullibles.
Right wing gullibles and left wing gullibles - when or where ever the twain shall meet? They met up at 911.
The End Times Are Near!
Reduce The Demand - Ban The Gullibles!
SCIENCE has been used to CONFIRM that the earth's climate is changing. However, the way that the polluters convince the sheep otherwise is to turn a scientific argument into a political one.
How hard is it to convince a conservative that Al Gore only wants to make money and that all the glaciers disappearing and warmer temperatures are not to be believed, and that reducing pollution is only another way to tax corporate America?
As this thread, and hundreds of others have proven, not hard at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
