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.
Actually Gore did no science, in fact his "science" is actually the work of Hansen and Mann (remember seeing the nifty hockey stick graph in Gores display?) among others. Hansen has been pushing hard for the AGW theory since the 70's and Mann's work is also equally leaning (well, his math and data methodology does anyway) to a conclusion for that benefit. You know James Hansen don't you? He is that rocking dude who was arrested recently with Darryl Hanna at an environmental protest rally.
Anyway, their work has been debunked over and over. Oh, you probably didn't know this, but umm... Those two with another scientist who we shall nickname "Secret Agent Man Jones" because he loves to hide the data are one of the leading authors for the IPCC's assessments to which AGW is claimed.
Though I am sure you knew this already as every AGW supporter is intricately involved with the "scienzezs".
Anyway, you might want to catch up on your talking point sites so you can see what it looks like when people are swimming up a certain creek without a paddle because the entire AGW position is currently in, pardon me while I use a complicated climate science term, deep doodoo.
I just realized that your only argument is to attack the Hansen and Mann research. It's like you stumbled on that years ago and have convinced yourself that that's all the proof you need that humans have no influence on climate.
You then wait for unsuspecting people to wander past so you can accuse them all of being duped by the hockey stick graph. If you read the poster to which you were responding, s/he never even suggested anything of the sort.
I'm not sure if you're educated or not, but in college when we learned about all the research associated with human-induced climate change (for and against) it certainly went far past those two.
Just yesterday saw on the news that researchers drilling in the ice found it to be significantly thinner than expected and that it could melt at least 85% within the decade.
So, just know that many of us who are not convinced a global civlization approaching 7 billion people whose lights cover almost the entire landscape and that depends upon burned CO2 would have no impact on the contained air in which it exists, base that conclusion on far more research than your hockey sticks.
There is a scientific basis for what was shown in that movie,. about 9000 years ago rapid melting of the Ice Sheet that covered most of Canada and much of the NE and Great Lakes region caused the ocean currents in the Atlantic to stop. Even though the world was warming up, the temperatures in the region around the N. Atlantic were decreased by 5-10 C and conditions were more like that in the previous Ice Age for nearly 500 years. Cold dry climates in N America and Europe didn't moderate until the ocean currents began again. This period is now called the Younger-Dryas (after a small flower found in the Tundra of Canada). Now today another large ice mass in Greenland is melting and putting large amounts of fresh water into the N. Atlantic. Just like the Laurentian Ice Sheet in Canada did 9000 years ago during the warm up at the end of the Ice Age.
The moral of the story is heating something up can lead to localized cooling.
Now explain that in scientific literature that supports each point made so we can analyze the details of each point to see if it is speculated or founded on a verifiable fact.
I will make this comment once mainly because it seems you are new to this and that you don't read peoples posts so might have missed our last discussion.
You are on ignore, nothing you have to say is important or relevant. You have been relegated to the room of silence along with all of the other posters who use fallacies like candy and can not form a coherent point if their life depended on it.
Again, read the last statement of my last post to you...
Sound like you are ready to repeat what dinosaur had been through without regret.
Scientist have done research on global warming long before a guy call Gore to step in and make it a bit political to you.
This is a follow up for you so you do not gain mob courage for the position and make yourself look foolish because idiot posters attack me personally and attempt to discredit my mention to you by suggesting I am specifically and ignorantly targeting a particular focus of the issue.
The poster who you might be encouraged by is ignorant of the science, ignorant of the fact that the people I mentioned are the key backers of Al Gores film and the leading proponents of the climate science claim of AGW. Their work is the backbone of what you see on Gores film, what you see on the "administrative summaries" of the IPCC's claim and just about every other AGW position out there.
They have been discredited, they have been shown through "science" that their assumptions are based on nothing more than manipulated and extremely biased data sets ran through focused models that are specifically designed to show a predefined outcome.
So please keep in mind before you respond that those attempting to combat me know nothing about the science and have specifically admitted to such in one on one discussions on the topic (I will provide links to their responses here as needed, though a simple search of their name and mine will return the same evidence).
They know nothing about what they speak and specifically focus on political discussion to avoid any real or scientific debate. They know this which is why they continue to attack on a personal basis to discredit anyone who would disagree with their fanatical position.
So you can take this knowledge and respond with credible information on any claim you might make willing to discuss the science of the issue or you can be like them and think you have the upper hand while you continue to sink into the position of irrelevant internet banter. It is your choice, but I would prefer if you choose to respond that you do so in a manner other than those that might attempt to bolster your position through arrogantly and ignorantly driven responses. In short, please do not be an idiot like some other posters.
This is a follow up for you so you do not gain mob courage for the position and make yourself look foolish because idiot posters attack me personally and attempt to discredit my mention to you by suggesting I am specifically and ignorantly targeting a particular focus of the issue.
The poster who you might be encouraged by is ignorant of the science, ignorant of the fact that the people I mentioned are the key backers of Al Gores film and the leading proponents of the climate science claim of AGW. Their work is the backbone of what you see on Gores film, what you see on the "administrative summaries" of the IPCC's claim and just about every other AGW position out there.
They have been discredited, they have been shown through "science" that their assumptions are based on nothing more than manipulated and extremely biased data sets ran through focused models that are specifically designed to show a predefined outcome.
So please keep in mind before you respond that those attempting to combat me know nothing about the science and have specifically admitted to such in one on one discussions on the topic (I will provide links to their responses here as needed, though a simple search of their name and mine will return the same evidence).
They know nothing about what they speak and specifically focus on political discussion to avoid any real or scientific debate. They know this which is why they continue to attack on a personal basis to discredit anyone who would disagree with their fanatical position.
So you can take this knowledge and respond with credible information on any claim you might make willing to discuss the science of the issue or you can be like them and think you have the upper hand while you continue to sink into the position of irrelevant internet banter. It is your choice, but I would prefer if you choose to respond that you do so in a manner other than those that might attempt to bolster your position through arrogantly and ignorantly driven responses. In short, please do not be an idiot like some other posters.
I have feeling that you have better talent working for a church than questioning people who actually DOING science.
Now explain that in scientific literature that supports each point made so we can analyze the details of each point to see if it is speculated or founded on a verifiable fact.
You have all you need to find supporting literature in the message. Goggling Younger Dryas Event gets you 108,000 citations to this geologic/climate event. Goggle will get you the stuff intended for non-specialists like Encyclopaedia Bitannica or Scientific American. If you know how to access The Citation Index you can get the specialist literature from both American and foreign journals from Russia, Europe, Japan and China. You can use this database because "Younger Dryas" is a key word. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of technical/scientific papers exceeds 10,000.
I have feeling that you have better talent working for a church than questioning people who actually DOING science.
You are welcome to respond to the science I discuss in any of the past threads. By all means, please post a contest to anything I have posted in them so we can discuss your objections.
Or, if you like you can provide some evidence to support your position here. What research do you cite to which supports your position? Would it be the IPCC's claims. If so, have you accounted for their changing position on the issue as well as the fact that the reviewers comments do not coincide with the administrative position of the IPCC and the fact that the majority of the AGW support in their report is reliant on key individuals research to which have already been shown to be flawed?
Maybe you would like to use a graphic that relies on Mann's work to which is nothing more than a cut off record with a splice of his work that has already been shown to be flawed through his misuse of the data and applying inversion techniques of the data to show a bias? More specifically, what is your take on him using Tiljander proxy upside down and denying such in the face of the evidence?
Also, maybe you would like to comment on using dendrochronology as a means to establish climate trends and whether it is even viable to do such with any verifiable results? Would you like to comment on Briffa's work with Yamal to which it has been recently found to be heavily weighted through selection bias?
You can also commment if you like on the current condition of the surface stations to which have been recently evaluated in the US and are showing that over 90% of them are beyond accepted calibration and location standards to which are showing CRN ratings of a 3 or higher with roughly 69% being a 4 or higher (showing a 2-5 degree discrepancy) leaning in a warming bias.
What is your position concerning the placement of these stations as it relates to UHI and the lack of concern by some AGW authors casual approach to "accounting" for the bias identified?
Would you also like to comment on the issues concerning the peer review process with journals such as Nature and Science who have published research without following proper policy to the release of the data of such research which is a standardized practice in publishing? Could you explain how research such as Mann and Briffa's are heavily relied on and yet were never properly published to allow 3rd party verification of their data?
I am willing to talk about the science and related processes of those involved. The real question is if you can. So would you like to comment or is your arrogant demeanor with your last response merely a bluff?
I just realized that your only argument is to attack the Hansen and Mann research. It's like you stumbled on that years ago and have convinced yourself that that's all the proof you need that humans have no influence on climate.
You then wait for unsuspecting people to wander past so you can accuse them all of being duped by the hockey stick graph. If you read the poster to which you were responding, s/he never even suggested anything of the sort.
I'm not sure if you're educated or not, but in college when we learned about all the research associated with human-induced climate change (for and against) it certainly went far past those two.
Just yesterday saw on the news that researchers drilling in the ice found it to be significantly thinner than expected and that it could melt at least 85% within the decade.
So, just know that many of us who are not convinced a global civlization approaching 7 billion people whose lights cover almost the entire landscape and that depends upon burned CO2 would have no impact on the contained air in which it exists, base that conclusion on far more research than your hockey sticks.
Sorry.
Which Ice are you talking about?
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.
