Over 400 Scientists Challenge Gore's Man-Made Global Warming Claims

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ah youre right Moonie. Till man walked the earth, C02 gasses didnt exist :roll:

Oh man, you are really lost, aren't you? Till man waked the earth and started burning stuff CO gas in the atmosphere was at pre-human levels. Since that time we have put a shit load of it into the atmosphere.

Then why were "pre-human levels" of CO2 frequently higher than current levels?

I try to be nice when arguing this issue, but the fact is that 99.9% of the people arguing about it on the internet are utterly clueless about it, except for whatever some partisan politics have force-fed them.

I doubt that most people here could even say what percentage of the earth's atmosphere is CO2 without googling it first.

I'll say it for the 10,000th time: global warming is real. MMGW is real. But Al Gore is a filthy liar, and your global warming alarmism is completely unfounded and unscientific. Temps are going to go up about 1C in the next century, not 10. Worst case scenario is that sea levels rise 20 inches in the next century, not Gore's outright lie of a 20 feet rise.
Yes, we should take care our environment. That goes without saying. No, we're not all going to die and the earth is not in any danger. We are puny ants compared to the earth. We have only put a shit load in the atmosphere by our own standards -- to the earth it's barely a drop in the bucket.

THAT is the scientific consensus. The alarmists and the deniers -- both of whom are arguing an idiotic false dilemma of being 100% right and the other side 100% wrong -- are both sides obsessed by partisan hackery and are utterly unscientific. There's no nicer way to put it.

Just keep on denying responsibility. Deny all the extinctions and ecological catastrophes brought about by mindless over use of natural resources.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ah youre right Moonie. Till man walked the earth, C02 gasses didnt exist :roll:

Oh man, you are really lost, aren't you? Till man waked the earth and started burning stuff CO gas in the atmosphere was at pre-human levels. Since that time we have put a shit load of it into the atmosphere.

Then why were "pre-human levels" of CO2 frequently higher than current levels?

I try to be nice when arguing this issue, but the fact is that 99.9% of the people arguing about it on the internet are utterly clueless about it, except for whatever some partisan politics have force-fed them.

I doubt that most people here could even say what percentage of the earth's atmosphere is CO2 without googling it first.

I'll say it for the 10,000th time: global warming is real. MMGW is real. But Al Gore is a filthy liar, and your global warming alarmism is completely unfounded and unscientific. Temps are going to go up about 1C in the next century, not 10. Worst case scenario is that sea levels rise 20 inches in the next century, not Gore's outright lie of a 20 feet rise.
Yes, we should take care our environment. That goes without saying. No, we're not all going to die and the earth is not in any danger. We are puny ants compared to the earth. We have only put a shit load in the atmosphere by our own standards -- to the earth it's barely a drop in the bucket.

THAT is the scientific consensus. The alarmists and the deniers -- both of whom are arguing an idiotic false dilemma of being 100% right and the other side 100% wrong -- are both sides obsessed by partisan hackery and are utterly unscientific. There's no nicer way to put it.

Just keep on denying responsibility. Deny all the extinctions and ecological catastrophes brought about by mindless over use of natural resources.

He's right!

I'm scared!

Here, let me get out my wallet. How much do the Democrats need?

:roll:

 

[gururu2]

Originally posted by: bamacre
He's right!

I'm scared!

Here, let me get out my wallet. How much do the Democrats need?

:roll:

500 billion dollars to cover the 500 billion spent looking for WMDs in the desert.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: bamacre
He's right!

I'm scared!

Here, let me get out my wallet. How much do the Democrats need?

:roll:

500 billion dollars to cover the 500 billion spent looking for WMDs in the desert.

Damnit!

Now, I am broke.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: bamacre
He's right!

I'm scared!

Here, let me get out my wallet. How much do the Democrats need?

:roll:

500 billion dollars to cover the 500 billion spent looking for WMDs in the desert.

Damnit!

Now, I am broke.

But wait, we borrowed that money from china with interest. So not only are you broke, you're a slave. Now get to work!

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: bamacre
He's right!

I'm scared!

Here, let me get out my wallet. How much do the Democrats need?

:roll:

500 billion dollars to cover the 500 billion spent looking for WMDs in the desert.

Damnit!

Now, I am broke.

But wait, we borrowed that money from china with interest. So not only are you broke, you're a slave.

Yeah, but planet Earth is saved! Yay!

 

[OokiiNeko]

btw - Take your age question and repeat it to the mirror. That was inappropriate in a serious discussion.

Actually, it is completely appropriate. Sometimes it takes a while to realize "Wait a minute, this is the same bull I heard years ago and years before that".

In the context of this discussion, there have been "advances in efficiency" that seem to create some buzz, then fade from view.

Here is one example.

Look at the reason they stopped development!

I do not expect to convince you. Stop at some garage sales and get about 40 years worth of Popular Mechanics and you should see what I mean. On about three issues, the above linked engine will be on the cover.



Edit: Will stick closer to global warming after this. Although greater energy efficiency would be a benefit all the way around.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: gururu2
you have over reacted to Gore's message, probably due to some other hidden bias you harbor against the man. his message is not meant to panic or shock the public. his message is to educate the public on how energy consumption contributes to global warming. making people aware of this, in a passionate and sincere effort, is more than the world's governments could do for the human species since the industrial revolution began. that is why he won the nobel prize.
its funny to me how a man comes along with a POSITIVE, educational message on how to make our lives better, and morons come out of the woodwork to argue.

There is nothing positive about guilt.

Originally posted by: Harvey
It's further evidence in support of Robert Heinlien's observation:

The two most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.

You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity.

As one of Heinlein's greatest fans, I am speaking of you, Harvey, simply because someone like you, who he would hate more than anyone else, would dare pretend to quote him out of context.

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Just keep on denying responsibility. Deny all the extinctions and ecological catastrophes brought about by mindless over use of natural resources.

You're a moron if you think I denied any responsibility of anything. But I'll keep you mind the next time I kill a dodo. :roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: gururu2

Originally posted by: bamacre
He's right!

I'm scared!

Here, let me get out my wallet. How much do the Democrats need?

:roll:

500 billion dollars to cover the 500 billion spent looking for WMDs in the desert.

Yay false dilemma!

I'll keep this in mind the next time the Dem leadership votes against spending in Iraq. Which will probably be never given their track record. :roll:

Some of us are interested in finding leadership that will actually do something instead of just talking about it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ah youre right Moonie. Till man walked the earth, C02 gasses didnt exist :roll:

Oh man, you are really lost, aren't you? Till man waked the earth and started burning stuff CO gas in the atmosphere was at pre-human levels. Since that time we have put a shit load of it into the atmosphere.

Then why were "pre-human levels" of CO2 frequently higher than current levels?

I try to be nice when arguing this issue, but the fact is that 99.9% of the people arguing about it on the internet are utterly clueless about it, except for whatever some partisan politics have force-fed them.

I doubt that most people here could even say what percentage of the earth's atmosphere is CO2 without googling it first.

I'll say it for the 10,000th time: global warming is real. MMGW is real. But Al Gore is a filthy liar, and your global warming alarmism is completely unfounded and unscientific. Temps are going to go up about 1C in the next century, not 10. Worst case scenario is that sea levels rise 20 inches in the next century, not Gore's outright lie of a 20 feet rise.
Yes, we should take care our environment. That goes without saying. No, we're not all going to die and the earth is not in any danger. We are puny ants compared to the earth. We have only put a shit load in the atmosphere by our own standards -- to the earth it's barely a drop in the bucket.

THAT is the scientific consensus. The alarmists and the deniers -- both of whom are arguing an idiotic false dilemma of being 100% right and the other side 100% wrong -- are both sides obsessed by partisan hackery and are utterly unscientific. There's no nicer way to put it.

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.


One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.
Link

A link to some history on the notion of CO2 and global warming inplying reasons to worry.

There are those that argue that CO2 isn't a problem and those who argue it is.

There are those who argue that the human effect is small and those who argue it's large.

If CO2 plays a large role as a greenhouse gas and increase in human caused CO2 is sufficient to trigger significant climate change, there is good reason to take action to reduce that effect if possible. Additionally, to get off the carbon kick of burning fosile fuels only makes sense in many other ways.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ah youre right Moonie. Till man walked the earth, C02 gasses didnt exist :roll:

Oh man, you are really lost, aren't you? Till man waked the earth and started burning stuff CO gas in the atmosphere was at pre-human levels. Since that time we have put a shit load of it into the atmosphere.

Then why were "pre-human levels" of CO2 frequently higher than current levels?

I try to be nice when arguing this issue, but the fact is that 99.9% of the people arguing about it on the internet are utterly clueless about it, except for whatever some partisan politics have force-fed them.

I doubt that most people here could even say what percentage of the earth's atmosphere is CO2 without googling it first.

I'll say it for the 10,000th time: global warming is real. MMGW is real. But Al Gore is a filthy liar, and your global warming alarmism is completely unfounded and unscientific. Temps are going to go up about 1C in the next century, not 10. Worst case scenario is that sea levels rise 20 inches in the next century, not Gore's outright lie of a 20 feet rise.
Yes, we should take care our environment. That goes without saying. No, we're not all going to die and the earth is not in any danger. We are puny ants compared to the earth. We have only put a shit load in the atmosphere by our own standards -- to the earth it's barely a drop in the bucket.

THAT is the scientific consensus. The alarmists and the deniers -- both of whom are arguing an idiotic false dilemma of being 100% right and the other side 100% wrong -- are both sides obsessed by partisan hackery and are utterly unscientific. There's no nicer way to put it.

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

That would be less that a 30% increase. World population has increased 400%. I guess thats not contributing though. Its all about the factories and cars.

 

[Lemon law]

Although its hard to suffer through the responses on this thread, its pretty clear that Al Gore's
critics are guilty of the same lack of science sins that they so clearly see in Al Gore. And while Al Gore undoubtedly exaggerates one way, his critics almost certainly exaggerate equally outrageously the other way. And unlike Al Gore, the critics try to argue GW is only about CO2.

So I will suggest another way to look at Al Gore. Because he is in exactly the same position that Christopher Columbus was in 500 years ago.

Columbus was not the first European to discover the " new world ", Columbus used junk science and thought he was discovering a new route to another place, and once he found that new world Columbus's tactics were less than pure. And when Columbus got back he massively over hyped what he found. And because he was greedy on top of his other sins, the Spanish king ended up tossing him in jail.

But unlike other Europeans who discovered the new world before Columbus, the Columbus discovery ignited the passions of others. And in the process the world profoundly changed. But through it all, Countries and cities are named after Columbus.

And man is now embarked into a new science of GW. And its time to admit that we know very little at this point in time. And while our computer skill is now pretty good, we can't find climate models that account for what we are seeing. In terms of increased temperatures, our
existing climate models over estimate that amount of "GW" we should be seeing, given increased CO2 level increases, at the lower latitudes and these same climate models vastly underestimate the amount of ice melting we are seeing at the higher latitudes. So its pretty clear we need to better understand ocean currents better. And we know these Ocean currents can suddenly stop if massive amounts of fresh water changes sea water specific gravities that drive the ocean currents. Meanwhile back in the higher latitudes these increased temperatures are releasing vast quantities of methane that was formerly in frozen permafrosts. And as a greenhouse gas, methane is almost 20 times as effective as CO2. And to add injury to that insult, far more massive methane hydrates are also presently locked up under higher latitude seabeds and those too seem to be waiting for a tipping point to be released.

The fact is, Gore is raising the alarm bells ahead of the science. Yet we ignore Gore at our own peril. And the little I have added, non CO2, to the science discussion only touches the surface on how complex the science of global warming is. And how little we now presently know. But at some thanks to Al Gore, science is working on the problem so at some future time we can better access risk reward questions with a better certainty.

But if any can come away with the concept that we can reach certain non reversible climate tipping points, and thereafter the world will become profoundly different. Shall we play Russian roulette now and do nothing about GW now?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
So I will suggest another way to look at Al Gore. Because he is in exactly the same position that Christopher Columbus was in 500 years ago.

You aren't seriously trying to paint a link between Columbus and Al Gore? :laugh:

I thought I'd heard it all. Man, this is getting ridiculous. :laugh:

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Lemon law
So I will suggest another way to look at Al Gore. Because he is in exactly the same position that Christopher Columbus was in 500 years ago.

You aren't seriously trying to paint a link between Columbus and Al Gore? :laugh:

I thought I'd heard it all. Man, this is getting ridiculous. :laugh:

I lol'd

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Lemon law
So I will suggest another way to look at Al Gore. Because he is in exactly the same position that Christopher Columbus was in 500 years ago.

You aren't seriously trying to paint a link between Columbus and Al Gore? :laugh:

I thought I'd heard it all. Man, this is getting ridiculous. :laugh:

I lol'd

Holy crap man you GW chicken littles are really losing it.

 

[umbrella39]

I lol'd, too. But mostly at the part where Pabster skipped past this post:

Originally posted by: NeoV
suck on this boys and girls - big surprise, the 400 'scientists' is a bunch of crap, just like pretty much everything that moron from Oklahoma has to say

http://climateprogress.org/200...s-in-2007-andy-revkin/

and went right to Lemon law's post to reply with some witty Al Gore remarks.

 

[Pabster]

You're right, I don't give the time of day to left-wing nutjobs and their eco-blogs :laugh:

 

[fskimospy]

Damn those eco blogs! Why do they have to tell me inconvenient facts like the 'scientists' are actually economists who know nothing about climate change! Whyyyyyyyyyy.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Although its hard to suffer through the responses on this thread, its pretty clear that Al Gore's
critics are guilty of the same lack of science sins that they so clearly see in Al Gore. And while Al Gore undoubtedly exaggerates one way, his critics almost certainly exaggerate equally outrageously the other way. And unlike Al Gore, the critics try to argue GW is only about CO2.

So I will suggest another way to look at Al Gore. Because he is in exactly the same position that Christopher Columbus was in 500 years ago.

Columbus was not the first European to discover the " new world ", Columbus used junk science and thought he was discovering a new route to another place, and once he found that new world Columbus's tactics were less than pure. And when Columbus got back he massively over hyped what he found. And because he was greedy on top of his other sins, the Spanish king ended up tossing him in jail.

But unlike other Europeans who discovered the new world before Columbus, the Columbus discovery ignited the passions of others. And in the process the world profoundly changed. But through it all, Countries and cities are named after Columbus.

And man is now embarked into a new science of GW. And its time to admit that we know very little at this point in time. And while our computer skill is now pretty good, we can't find climate models that account for what we are seeing. In terms of increased temperatures, our
existing climate models over estimate that amount of "GW" we should be seeing, given increased CO2 level increases, at the lower latitudes and these same climate models vastly underestimate the amount of ice melting we are seeing at the higher latitudes. So its pretty clear we need to better understand ocean currents better. And we know these Ocean currents can suddenly stop if massive amounts of fresh water changes sea water specific gravities that drive the ocean currents. Meanwhile back in the higher latitudes these increased temperatures are releasing vast quantities of methane that was formerly in frozen permafrosts. And as a greenhouse gas, methane is almost 20 times as effective as CO2. And to add injury to that insult, far more massive methane hydrates are also presently locked up under higher latitude seabeds and those too seem to be waiting for a tipping point to be released.

The fact is, Gore is raising the alarm bells ahead of the science. Yet we ignore Gore at our own peril. And the little I have added, non CO2, to the science discussion only touches the surface on how complex the science of global warming is. And how little we now presently know. But at some thanks to Al Gore, science is working on the problem so at some future time we can better access risk reward questions with a better certainty.

But if any can come away with the concept that we can reach certain non reversible climate tipping points, and thereafter the world will become profoundly different. Shall we play Russian roulette now and do nothing about GW now?

It's not that I don't like Al. I voted for him in 2000 even. And in both '92 and '96 when he ran on Bill's ticket. It's just that I'm not down with your group's bizarre cult-of-personality god-complex with him. This post a perfect (and laughable) case-in-point of that.
He's not Columbus. And even if he were, a member of Columbus' crew gave smallpox to the Native Americans on the very first voyage, which resulted in the deaths of 95% of the native population.
In other words, beware the unintended consequences of your high-minded ideals.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Damn those eco blogs! Why do they have to tell me inconvenient facts like the 'scientists' are actually economists who know nothing about climate change! Whyyyyyyyyyy.

aahhhh I love bloggers! We can pick and choose who are experts and who are hacks! Youre right no matter what your position is! Gotta love America...

 

[NeoV]

um, Pabster, the point of this entire thread has been debunked, and your response is "I don't pay attention to left wing blogs"?

Your list of 400 'experts' in the field is junk, hence the entire point of this thread = junk

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: NeoV
um, Pabster, the point of this entire thread has been debunked, and your response is "I don't pay attention to left wing blogs"?

Your list of 400 'experts' in the field is junk, hence the entire point of this thread = junk

Debunked? Really? By Who? Some left-wing nutjob with an eco blog? :laugh:

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Damn those eco blogs! Why do they have to tell me inconvenient facts like the 'scientists' are actually economists who know nothing about climate change! Whyyyyyyyyyy.

Yea, I'm sure you'd be perfectly fine if someone posted something from a right wing blog......:roll:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: JD50
Yea, I'm sure you'd be perfectly fine if someone posted something from a right wing blog......:roll:

Oh, of course he would. :roll:

I try to avoid blog references, and when I do use them, I make it clear the piece is opinion and not fact. And the reader can decide on their own.

The hypocrisy that flows around here is unbelievable.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: NeoV
um, Pabster, the point of this entire thread has been debunked, and your response is "I don't pay attention to left wing blogs"?

Your list of 400 'experts' in the field is junk, hence the entire point of this thread = junk

Debunked? Really? By Who? Some left-wing nutjob with an eco blog? :laugh:

Debunked as in " 400 scientists did not challenge Gore's claims."