Well of course. We know he is, but you would think he could pretend to care a little bit better than this....
ALGORE KEEPS THE LIGHTS ON
Flying his corporate jets around, using more electricity than a small city, driving a fleet of SUVs, etc...
Who is stupid enough to still believe in this guy?
53 comments:
And here I am thinking Al Gore was all super cereal bout global warming.
If Al Gore diddled little boys it would not alter my opinion about global warming.
Why would it? Facts haven't changed your opinion either. I was just pointing out that the guys a complete hypocrite and even though you're a sucker and believe this bullshit, he doesn't.
My opinion is based on facts. Gore, whatever you may think of him, was right on the ozone layer (now universally conceded) and right on global warming.
Your opinion is based on emotion. You need there to be global warming to make you feel important. That Greenpeace bumper sticker on your car is your life's only validation.
All the facts you cling to have been disproven and discredited. The very basic tenets of the movement have been proven to be fraudulent. Fraudulent.
... and what do alarmists do?
They just keep changing the "facts" while ignoring any dissent. Thats why its no longer warming but change. Its a half a sham and you know it but it makes you sleep better at night thinking that your puny existance on earth has a greater meaning.
.... and that is why you never cite any actual facts, because there is none... just theories and computer models. So instead you talk about how the debate is over and that consensus rules the day. Its garbage.
You cite your facts here and we will invalidate them as we have been doing the last couple years.
...then you can cry about Exxon and run off like a little school girl like every time we have this debate.
I suppose the conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change, the National Academy of Science, the AAS, the Royal Society, and all the other scientific organizations are all based on emotion as well? It's all a conspiracy right? You're the one with your head in an emotional sand, and it was your comment that had a strong emotional tone. It's easy to be a GW skeptic when you only read one side.
So...
In other words you have nothing.
Interesting that you would cite the International Panel on Climate Change. Just look at their fucking name for cristophers sake. You expect them have come to any other conclusion?
"Well it seems that the hockey stick model we based our entire argument on was flawed, erroneous, and perhaps even fraudulent but we had all these nifty monogrammed bath robes made up so climate change it is"
And no I dont think its a conspiracy, to imply that would mean that their is an air of secrecy to their deception. They are lying straight to our face.
If you are not going to offer any concrete proof of the link between mankind's carbon output and the recent warming and/or cooling cycle than your imput on this subject is just not credible.
So they are all lying? Not just wrong, but lying. That's what I mean by conspiracy theory. But you say that the conclusions of all these esteemed scientific bodies are "nothing". Because a small minority of scientists say otherwise. Or because Rush says otherwise. But what if they're wrong? I could cite numerous scientific studies, but you would dismiss all of them.
If you are not going to offer any concrete proof of the link between mankind's carbon output and the recent warming and/or cooling cycle than your imput on this subject is just not credible.
... or warranted.
You haven't offered any concrete proof, only the opinions of a minority of skeptics. I may not be credible (nor are you) but the National Acadamey of Science and the Royal Society are. Must I cite a long list of scientific studies? Most of the skeptics do not publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals on this subject.
Could the scientific minority be right, even though they don't publish, even though they take Exxon money, even weighed against an overwhelming number of studies on the other side? I suppose so,although it seems unlikely to me, but how can you be so sure they are? And I can tell that you are 100% sure that you are 100% right, which cannot be based on science but must be based on something else. Emotion perhaps or a rigid ideology.
You obviously havent read any of the reports from the agencies you cite.
Or else you wouldnt cite them.
Im done with you on this subject because I find your arguments to be tired and dishonest.
Until you can cite definitive proof that the carbon emissions from human beings are a leading (and not lagging) indicator of a rise in earth's temperature we have nothing further to discuss on this subject.
Put the google down for once. Print out the entire reports and read them. Then get back to us.
Or should I say
Until you can cite definitive proof that the carbon emissions from human beings are a leading (and not lagging) indicator of a CHANGE in earth's temperature we have nothing further to discuss on this subject.
Considering that warming is no longer the official argument of the alarmists since they knew it was not true.
You're acting like the evolution deniers. There is no one proof. There are hundreds of studies in Nature, in Science, and in scores of other peer-reviewed journals. None of which I have read, nor have you, but they have been summarized in the major newspapers.There are new studies reported on an almost weekly basis. I suppose I am here relying on scientific authority, on the probability that the majority of scientists are right, and the fringe minority (who never seem to publish, why is that?) is wrong. You prefer to believe that the National Academy of Science is lying. About global warming, and I suppose, about evolution, which I also accept. Silly me.
Hundreds of studies?
Wow thats alot.
And yet water water everywhere not a drop to drink an ounce of proof linking human carbon emission to global warming.
Yes, silly you.
What is it with liberals not reading stuff before they decide to believe in it?
You should work on that.
It is fundamental afterall.
There have been many hundreds of studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.These studies are the reason the National Academy of Science accepts anthropogenic GW. I haven't read them. Neither have you. I am not a scientist and do not subscribe to these journals and I doubt you do either. I do my best to read the summaries of them in the major news media. Not being a scientist I rely on the press and on the scientific consensus, which does exist and is over 90%. You rely on the news media of the rightwing bizarro press.
Here's a thought: what if the NAS and the Royal Society are right and Fred Singer is wrong?
So does that mean you havent read the reports?
Shame really, not surprising.
Carry on sheep.
Have you read the reports? Which scientific journals do you subscribe to? I'm guessing that you read links from Drudge and WorldNetDaily on global warming. Maybe you saw The Global Warming Swindle.
I'm not a scientist, just a citizen. Bertrand Russell said that the best a layman can do is to go with the consensus on scientific matters, or withhold judgement if there is none. One function of groups like the National Academy of Science is to advise policy makers. If I were President I would be more likely to be guided by their opinions than Fred Singer or Rush Limbaugh.
Yes I have.
Most of them at least and everything that the IPCC has published.
You obviously havent been paying attention, I am an enviromentalist. I make it my business to know these things so when I debate idiots, oh im sorry... laymen, such as yourself Im prepared to battle rhetoric and propoganda with truth.
If you had done the same you would be quite surprised that the evidence they present never matches the conclusion. Shocker, its almost as if they came up with the conclusion first.
It would actually be quite comical if it weremt for the blind sheep following this madness allowing it to grow and fester like a plague of idiocy.
Oh well, it wont be long before we can look back and all have a laugh about it.
Then you and your ilk can move on to the next crisis. Ice age maybe?
Let's take a step back from the debate for a moment. I could be wrong. The National Academy of Science, etc., could be wrong. You could be wrong (difficult as that is to believe. But if a scientist is wrong, or a thousand scientists, that doesn't mean that they are lying, or stupid, or that it's a plot of some sort. C02 levels are rising. C02 is a greenhouse gas which should, according to the laws of physics raise temperature levels. Temperature levels are indeed rising, according to most scientists. It is not unreasonable to draw this conclusion, particularly given the long list of scientific bodies on my side of this debate. Reasonable people can disagree, I will grant you.
C02 is a greenhouse gas which should, according to the laws of physics raise temperature levels.
False.
Warming leads to CO2 being released into the atmosphere naturally.
Temperature levels are indeed rising.
False.
We have begun a cooling period.
Next.
Rising C02 levels lead to increased temperatures.
Increased temperatures lead to rising C02 levels.
Both are true and why we are so screwed. Man is releasing C02 into the atmosphere AND as the temperatures go up more C02 (and methane etc) will be released as well.
You can't believe everything you read on wingnut sites. The Earth is not cooling. You're just an idiot. Sorry, but it's not my fault.
The CO2 levels wouldnt change a damn if man ceased to exist tommorow. Do the math.
2008 was the coolest year in a decade. Hence the change from warming to climate change.
One year doesn't mean much. According to the Guardian story:
The relatively chilly temperatures compared with recent years are not evidence that global warming is slowing however, say climate scientists at the Met Office. "Absolutely not," said Dr Peter Stott, the manager of understanding and attributing climate change at the Met Office's Hadley Centre. "If we are going to understand climate change we need to look at long-term trends."
And I don't see how you can deny that mankind causes C02 levels to rise. You're saying that not only are all the scientists wrong on GW but that they are complete idiots.
One year doesn't mean much. According to the Guardian story:
The relatively chilly temperatures compared with recent years are not evidence that global warming is slowing however, say climate scientists at the Met Office. "Absolutely not," said Dr Peter Stott, the manager of understanding and attributing climate change at the Met Office's Hadley Centre. "If we are going to understand climate change we need to look at long-term trends."
And I don't see how you can deny that mankind causes C02 levels to rise. You're saying that not only are all the scientists wrong on GW but that they are complete idiots.
Do you guys know that the co2 levels have actually decreased over the past couple of years? The PPM is actually LOWER.
C02 PPM levels are higher. See:
http://co2now.org/
CO2 levels during the Jurassic Period were appx. 2000 ppm. Roughly five times todays level.
Jeff Goldblum, thankfully, has stayed the same.
More importantly regarding this discussion, of today's CO2 levels only 3% can attributed to mankind. Furthermore of that 3%, roughly 25% is from breathing.
Yet alarmists want us to believe that our minuscule statistically insignificant COntribution to the atmosphere is 100% responsible for the short term fluctuations in Earth's temperature.
It just doesn't add up.
It doesn't add up for you. But it makes sense to the scientists, perhaps because they are smarter than you.
"Scientists at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii say that CO2 levels in the atmosphere now stand at 387 parts per million (ppm), up almost 40% since the industrial revolution and the highest for at least the last 650,000 years."
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/13/carbonemissions.climatechange
So how do you explain the CO2 levels 650,000 years ago?
I don't know. Maybe they don't have estimates going back farther than that. You should check out www.realclimate.org Climate science by climate scientists.
Maybe they don't have estimates going back farther than that
Then why did you bring it up?
Do you make a habit of citing unproven theories and guesses as fact?
You said...
"Scientists at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii say that CO2 levels in the atmosphere now stand at 387 parts per million (ppm), up almost 40% since the industrial revolution and the highest for at least the last 650,000 years."
Oh I know because you just regurgitate shit you read, without thinking for yourself. Dont cite studies you dont understand or make an argument you cant defend.
From the info you provided you concede that CO2 levels have been this high before just 650k years ago. If these levels are as dangeous as you say, then tell me why the Earth hasnt ended by now?
Put the google down answer the question.
FYI: There was an ice age 500,000 years after those dangerous earth ending tax everything CO2 levels 650k years ago.
Now gets to googling.
So anyway nobody want's to discuss the FACT that over 30,000 U.S. scientists with NO financial incentive to do so have said global warming is bullshit?
Even if you believe that these other groups are telling the truth as they see it (i don't. i think they're lying) you have to admit that there's some pretty compelling evidence on the other side. Certainly there's no reason to give up even more of our liberty on a THEORY of a few groups who DO have a financial interest?
By the way, evolution is just a theory too. There is NO proof of that one either. but don't try to change the subject.
Oh,let's change the subject. Evolution is a fact and a theory.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html Anyway, anyone with a brain accepts evolution unless for nutty religious reasons.
Now back to GW. No one has ever said that the climate has never changed over the last umpteen million years. So what? The consensus today is that we are in an anthropogenic warming period.
There are some scientists on the other side. The list of 30,000 doesn't really impress me. Anyone can sign, some of them aren't scientists, some are in other fields. Only about 9000 have Ph.Ds.
One leading climate skeptic, Fred Singer, hasn't had a peer reviewed article in 20 years. What's up with that? He also testifies on behalf of the tobacco industry, outside of his field. What's the connection? Oh, yes industry groups pay him. He's a hack, whatever his credentials.
From the info you provided you concede that CO2 levels have been this high before just 650k years ago. If these levels are as dangeous as you say, then tell me why the Earth hasnt ended by now?
FYI: There was an ice age 500,000 years after those dangerous earth ending tax everything CO2 levels 650k years ago.
Singer is the man, but he's not among the 30,000 that i speak of.
So lets do the math according to gary...
ONLY 9000 have PHD's, It's ONLY Americans, It's ONLY scientists who don't have a financial incentive to agree but there IS a consensus????
Hmmm.... somebody needs to go back to figuring school.
How many American Scientists who DON'T have a financial incentive to say so, with PHD's have said that Global Warming is man made?
I don't know of 1. Please tell me how many you know of.
The list of 30,000 is a public relations gimmick. Of the 9000 Ph.Ds how many are in climate science? The consensus is at least 90%, probably higher. Science is not immune to political and financial considerations, I grant you, which is all the more reason that it is good that the scientific method is self-correcting, which why it is all the more important to be guided by actual studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals. And it is from meta-reviews of such studies that we know that the great majority of actual climate scientists, working in the field and publishing, recognize anthropogenic global warming. How can you be so sure that your scientists are right?
Fred Singer is the man? Although he hasn't published in 20 years? Although he is willing to testify on second-hand smoke, outside his field, for money? Why? Because you agree with him? Here's a thought: he's a hack and he's wrong.
I have bent over backwards to concede that the scientific minority could conceivable be right. Will you concede that they could be wrong?
I'LL SHOW YOU MINE... IT'S BIG. WHAT YOU GOT?
Qualifications of Signers
Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.
The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,153 MS; 2,585 MD and DVM; and 12,711 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.
All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.
The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.
Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.
1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,803 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.
2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.
3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,810 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.
4. Chemistry includes 4,818 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.
5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,964 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.
6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.
7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.
The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.
Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,803)
1. Atmosphere (578)
I) Atmospheric Science (113)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (341)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)
2. Earth (2,240)
I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,684)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)
3. Environment (985)
I) Environmental Engineering (486)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)
Computers & Math (935)
1. Computer Science (242)
2. Math (693)
I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)
Physics & Aerospace (5,810)
1. Physics (5,223)
I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,635)
2. Aerospace Engineering (587)
Chemistry (4,818)
1. Chemistry (3,126)
2. Chemical Engineering (1,692)
Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,964)
1. Biochemistry (744)
I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)
2. Biology (1,437)
I) Biology (1,048)
II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)
3. Agriculture (783)
I) Agricultural Science (296)
II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)
Medicine (3,046)
1. Medical Science (719)
2. Medicine (2,327)
General Engineering & General Science (10,102)
1. General Engineering (9,833)
I) Engineering (7,280)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)
2. General Science (269)
Ho-hum. How many of them are climate scientists who have published in peer-reviewed journals on global warming?
2,585 MD and DVM? DVM? Aren't those Vets?
Anyway, if numbers are so important to you, about 90% of scientists are on my side. That's a big number.
numbers are so important to YOU. You keep bringing up this 90% and yet you haven't named ANY who don't have a financial incentive to say so. I give you names,qualifications,motivation(or lack thereof)and this is ONLY U.S. based scientists.
So once again i showed you mine.
Please show me your thousands and thousands of U.S. scientists who have NO financial incentive to say global warming is man made. I'm waiting.
If you can not produce this, and i understand that it might not be easily accessed, please list 100. If 90% agree with you, and i have approximately 5000 that meet your requirements, then you have 95000 sceintists to choose from. i don't think 100 should be that tough to find.
100 phd's in atmospheric,earth,or environmental science. Take your time......
one more thing......
The project has fulfilled the expectations of its organizers. In PhD scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPCC process. The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.
Your list is is a PR project, not science. The IPCC scientists are working in their field. The vets and dentists on your list don't I think. Why don't you find me 100 published climate scientists on your list.
But look, I have conceded that there are some climate scientists who doubt GW. A minority but some. Any chance in your mind that they might be wrong?
Oh, and as far a the financial incentives: sure most climate scientists get paid, by universities, government grants, etc. And most GW skeptics get paid, by Exxon and energy interests for the most part. The climate scientists get paid to do research. The skeptics get paid to write op-eds for newspapers and to create doubt in the mind of the public on GW.
NO gary the one's i gave you DO NOT get paid by Exxon or anyone else.
Please just give me 100 names or shut the fuck up.
I don't care about your 30,000 names. Few, if any, of them are climate scientists who have done research and published. Why should I care what a Dentist or Vet thinks about global warming? Give me 10 names of GW skeptics who don't get money from energy interests. But I'm done playing the number game or the name game. I concede that there are probably not 100 scientists, pro or anti-global warming, that don't get paid by someone. Very few scientists are homeless vagrants.
You remind me of a child who thinks that when he closes his eyes nobody can see him. You close your eyes but the truth is still there. Open your eyes gary. Don't be afraid.
gary just admit it. there is no consensus.
I gave you the names. You can go to the website and look up all of them. They ARE peer reviewed. THOUSANDS of them ARE either climate scientists or in a related field.
Since I do not have time to look up 31,000 names (and I'm sure you didn't do this) let me concede that there may be hundreds of actual climate scientists on this list. Consensus does not mean unanimity, it is enough that a fairly large majority of scientists accept GW for there to be a consensus. I have pointed this out to you before. Pay attention. You would do better to argue that the consensus is wrong. I have never denied that some scientists question global warming and that conceivably they might be right. Once again I ask: is there any chance in your mind that the skeptics might be wrong?
For more on the Oregon Petition:
http://www.desmogblog.com/infamous-oregon-global-warming-petition-alive-and-well
I know you'll like this:
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/04/01/scientists-worldwide-admit-global-warming-is-a-hoax/
gary you don't have to look up all the scientists. Just go to the website. there are THOUSANDS of climate scientists.
Just check it out.
i checked out your link.
You linked someones blog that is saying basically...
1. The authors of the petition are being paid by big oil
2. The signers are just sheep who are too stupid to do their own homework and that's why they signed it
3. The petition authors are also backed by the other boogey man big tobacco
4. They're all liars.
So in other words you're using your same old liar liar pants on fire defense. In the mean time you have yet to name 1 scientist who isn't COMPLETELY dependent on the bogus global warming theory who agrees with it.
Once again i've given you 31,000 and counting. thousands of them are climate scientists, the rest of them are just people who are 100
times more qualified to analyze the research than you or me. They are formally educated, gainfully employed in some field of science, have at least an undergraduate degree in science, and are certainly not stupid.
Yet you want me to believe that they were all duped by an oil company.
Could these nefarious "climate change deniers" have fooled one or two people? Sure. How about 100 or 200? maybe. 31000 including a few thousand who actually work in the field?
I would say you can do the math for yourself, but clearly you can't.
First of all I have an undergraduate science degree so I guess I'm an authority on climate change. Scientific American called a random sample of some of the signers. Some of them said they would no longer sign it today (it's been around since the early 90's, I think). They also found about 200 actual climate scientists; now that was in 2001 when there were only 17,00 names so it is probably double that today. Anyway, no matter how you slice it the skeptics are in the minority. That doesn't make them wrong but it certainly doesn't make them right either. I've made my evaluation and you've made yours.
Some of them said? Well then that settles it. Obviously some of the random sampling said something or another. That's a very scientific study that SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN did. I wonder if it was a couple of dentists who changed their minds? Or maybe some guys who got jobs with the U.N. after they signed. Who knows? Not you obviously.
You see unlike the "random calls" with UNNAMED signers, the actual petition has names, signatures, qualifications, peer reviewed work, etc.
And once again you haven't named ONE scientist who is not COMPLETELY DEPENDENT on global warming who agrees that it is man made.
Post a Comment