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.
I know there is a fixed amount of water on planet earth, or in it's atmosphere as vapor. Tides, wind setup, temperature, barometric pressure all contribute to fluctuations in level, measured at certain points in the ocean(global) environment. In enclosed lakes, ponds, rivers, streams there are seasonal level fluctuations that may, or may not cause localized flooding, some of which could be catastrophic, but certainly not something that would devour entire coastlines as predicted by algore.
Now lets hear your theory of water level rise, on the ocean coastline, in the closed environment of earth's atmosphere. We're all gonna drown when the ice caps melt?........Doubtful
Actually, scientists (not Al Gore - why do his detractors always write algore? Makes no sense) had been predicting rising sea levels long before he brought it to popular opinion.
There is a fixed amount of water on planet earth, but so much of it has been frozen that the melting ice from glaciers atop land changes sea levels. It's simply a matter of the water changing form and displacement.
I suspect people who are so critical of Al Gore never heard of climate change before he brought it to their attention, so they think he just made it up. They seem to believe that if you discredit the messenger, you can discredit the message.
This has been a serious and known issue since at least the 1980s, with the first research data on it dating back to the 1950s. Al Gore just put together a slide show about it.
Then why the need for the deceptive image? Certainly with all your "advanced schooling" you could offer some discussion on the subject instead of resorting to images that are only meant to deceive. For example I could produce an image without such plumes and declare "see how clean it is" but that wouldn't be fair and I wouldn't resort to such tactics simply because it's not honest.
There's already enough propaganda being bandied about from the media, environmentalist groups and many other places. We certainly don't need anymore.
lol....
thecoalman, obviously you're a pretty intelligent person, but you're not paying attention.
You were given an image with no description nor explanation of what it was and at no time was a description contextually implied. When left to yourself you assumed it was a description of pollution, assumed I had no idea what was or was not coming from the smokestacks, admitted you didn't know much about the picture, and then proceeded to explain to me how much you did know about water vapor and photo-manipulation.
How about next time you lay your assumptions at the door. Btw, I'm certain I could produce as many photos as you of what appears to be clean water, water vapor and smoke, don't you agree?
As for the premise of this thread's conversations, I find it interesting that you support the idea that a few days fall in temperatures implies the theory of Global Warming is disproved.
Last edited by walidm; 07-27-2009 at 06:20 AM..
Reason: punctuation, apostrophe
It is an analogy. I have actually never heard that before, but serves its purpose.
The point is this-
1. One must ask the question- is it warming or cooling?
2. One must have a sufficient experimental design and DATA to answer the question.
3. The study design, methods and statistics must be valid
4. If a "problem" is identifed as a real issue above, then the question becomes can we correct it, and if so, how so?
5. Acting in the absence of conclusive proof and insufficient data may be doing exactly the opposite of what we need. "Acting" may do nothing at all. We really do not know conclusively either issue at this time.
There is a saying in medicine- "Just don't do something, stand there". I think unless you know there is a real problem and know what can solve it, no action is better than doing the wrong thing.
We appear to have quite a bit of data, and while some of it has had to be adjusted when more refined methods for eliminating error were produced, do you believe the Governments are acting outside of the consensus of the majority of scientists? The reason I ask is, science will not admit as a general rule 100%, there will always be some error. What is the ratio of error with the currents analysis?
Well they must have gotten nervous about global warming so the Czar of Phraseology changed it to "climate change" so all bases could be covered...and, so they could get the word "change" in there that's worked so well for them in the past.
And it was 70 for a week in Michigan in December, So?
Day by day has NOTHING to do with it. Repeat - NOTHING.
Less then 1% of all scientists (even the non-climate ones) say GW is not real. again repeat. Less then 1%.
So it must not be real. The less then 1 percent said so.
Even if (by chance) the 99.5% are wrong, I'd rather take the chance with them (right or wrong), then the 1%.
now, any educated person with grasp of the english language (or programming language even) would not degrade themselves by calling their fellow scientist with whom they have slight disagreement, GORETARD
Well, nobody's perfect .
Quote:
namecalling usually means lack of intelligence
In my real life encounters, I'm quite different in my dealings with people
As for the premise of this thread's conversations, I find it interesting that you support the idea that a few days fall in temperatures implies the theory of Global Warming is disproved.
Did I say that? Funny I don't remember saying that. Certainly doesn't sound like something I would say. Putting words in my mouth are we?
I'm well aware that although we having a very mild summer here in the Northeast it certainly doesn't disprove the theory of AGW. I'm also aware that although last years average temperatures within the U.S. were...well average based on temperatures over the last century that it doesn't disprove AGW. I'm also aware that although the trend for the last decade is cooling of the planet it doesn't disprove AGW. I'm also aware that most scinetists can agree that the globe has been warming but that doesn't prove or disprove AGW either.
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.
oh dear...
.
