"Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling."
...makes you a babbling fool. You're persistent though, if not downright repetitive. I'll give you that.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
What? The guy knows what he's talking about. The only real debate here is about whether he deserves a PhD or a DSc after his name.
Do you have anything relevant to contribute?
Why would anyone believe anything this man says after he obviously lies about his credentials. I tell you what -- I'll just say you have a point and leave you alone because I feel bad for the way you were torn up and owned tonight. Better luck tomorrow, sis.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Why would anyone believe anything this man says after he obviously lies about his credentials. I tell you what -- I'll just say you have a point and leave you alone because I feel bad for the way you were torn up and owned tonight. Better luck tomorrow, sis.
Chirp chirp! Where's your knowledge?? Chirp chirp! Anyone know where Rush left his insight!?
We're waiting...
If you'll excuse me I'm going to retire to my study and finish my copy of Earth in the Balance.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Why would anyone believe anything this man says after he obviously lies about his credentials. I tell you what -- I'll just say you have a point and leave you alone because I feel bad for the way you were torn up and owned tonight. Better luck tomorrow, sis.
Besides, Bill Clinton lied to a grand jury and he's still the greatest President we've ever had, if not the most intelligent person on the face of the Earth. Who are you to claim this guy doesn't know what he's talking about because he has a PhD? I listen to the guys with PhD's, not canarys.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Tim Ball habitually exaggerates his credentials. A PhD is a Doctor of Philosophy, not a Doctor of Science(DSc). At the University of Winnipeg he was a geography professor for 8 years, not the 32 he claims when he passed off this same article you're posting, 8 months ago:
A PhD in a scientific discipline is equivalent to a DSc in the US, and it is really the only doctorate there is in most of the rest of the world. It may literally stand for Doctor of Philosophy, but that's not what it means these days.
But yes, sounds like this guy is full of shit. I notice he has a bachelor of arts degree, not a science degree. It seems hard to imagine how you become a leading climatologist with no background in science.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
A PhD in a scientific discipline is equivalent to a DSc in the US, and it is really the only doctorate there is in most of the rest of the world. It may literally stand for Doctor of Philosophy, but that's not what it means these days.
But yes, sounds like this guy is full of shit. I notice he has a bachelor of arts degree, not a science degree. It seems hard to imagine how you become a leading climatologist with no background in science.
A Doctor of Science in England seems to have some distinction that this guy certainly hasn't achieved.
Al Gore has absolutely no credentials in the realm of science. He has a Bachelor of Arts degree in government. Which obviously makes him a noteworthy spokesman for global warming.
Maybe it's the Law Degree he never recieved from Vandy that makes him an expert on this topic?
- Gore was a pupil of one of the first scientists to study global warming, and to measure carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
- When Gore was in Congress, he initiated the first Congressional hearing on the subject, and brought in climate scientists to talk to politicians about it.
- Wrote a book 'Earth in the Balance', discussing numerous environmental topics which reached the bestsellers list.
- As Vice President, Gore pushed for the Carbon Tax, helped broker the Kyoto Protocol and supported the Triana satellite.
In regards to his film, an Inconvenient Truth:
- The AP contacted more than 100 top climatologists about the films accuracy, they all said he conveyed the science correctly.
- RealClimate, a group of 11 climate scientists, said the science of the film is 'remarkably up to date, with reference to current research."
So, yes, Al Gore has a bit more credibility and has certainly done a lot more to back up his position than you would like to claim or believe.
Fact is that the vast majority of all climatologists and scientists studying this field are in agreement that anthropogenic global warming is in fact a reality. As science and any logical being would agree, a consensus of this magnitude among the experts in this field is enough to stand behind. The vast majority of scientists have shown the earth to not be flat, to show that we orbit around the sun, and to show that the earth is billions of years old. Why then would YOU choose to go against the vast majority of scientific research and expertise? Sure, you can choose to believe the earth is flat, we are the center of the universe, the earth is 6,000 years old and global warming is a myth. But, I ask you, WHY? Go join a cult, drink your kool aid and mumble to yourself for all I care, but stay away from me!
The only real debate is whether man's effect is having as much or more of an effect as that of the natural carbon cycle (i.e. volcanic activity/natural temperature changes). Many scientists, as well as Gore's movie, attempt to show measurements in atmospheric carbon levels during our time here, from real-time measurements, to sedimentary, to go back thousands of years. They have shown a marked increase during periods of our activity, such as the industrial revolution for example.
Sure it is difficult to imagine our interference to have an impact in the vastness of the planet, but when you think of how many people there are now, the amount of carbon that is taken out and pumped into the air, disrupting the natural carbon life cycle, and how much more pollution is produced by other developing countries compared to ours, it is not a stretch to believe there is some effect.
It's pretty obvious to me that the Earth itself will recover. Animals will recover. They come and go. We will also go. If what the majority of scientists say is true, it will be from our own doing, no matter if you believe in global warming or not. It doesn't care about your opinion.
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
- Gore was a pupil of one of the first scientists to study global warming, and to measure carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
- When Gore was in Congress, he initiated the first Congressional hearing on the subject, and brought in climate scientists to talk to politicians about it.
- Wrote a book 'Earth in the Balance', discussing numerous environmental topics which reached the bestsellers list.
- As Vice President, Gore pushed for the Carbon Tax, helped broker the Kyoto Protocol and supported the Triana satellite.
In regards to his film, an Inconvenient Truth:
- The AP contacted more than 100 top climatologists about the films accuracy, they all said he conveyed the science correctly.
- RealClimate, a group of 11 climate scientists, said the science of the film is 'remarkably up to date, with reference to current research."
So, yes, Al Gore has a bit more credibility and has certainly done a lot more to back up his position than you would like to claim or believe.
Fact is that the vast majority of all climatologists and scientists studying this field are in agreement that anthropogenic global warming is in fact a reality. As science and any logical being would agree, a consensus of this magnitude among the experts in this field is enough to stand behind. The vast majority of scientists have shown the earth to not be flat, to show that we orbit around the sun, and to show that the earth is billions of years old. Why then would YOU choose to go against the vast majority of scientific research and expertise? Sure, you can choose to believe the earth is flat, we are the center of the universe, the earth is 6,000 years old and global warming is a myth. But, I ask you, WHY? Go join a cult, drink your kool aid and mumble to yourself for all I care, but stay away from me!
The only real debate is whether man's effect is having as much or more of an effect as that of the natural carbon cycle (i.e. volcanic activity/natural temperature changes). Many scientists, as well as Gore's movie, attempt to show measurements in atmospheric carbon levels during our time here, from real-time measurements, to sedimentary, to go back thousands of years. They have shown a marked increase during periods of our activity, such as the industrial revolution for example.
Sure it is difficult to imagine our interference to have an impact in the vastness of the planet, but when you think of how many people there are now, the amount of carbon that is taken out and pumped into the air, disrupting the natural carbon life cycle, and how much more pollution is produced by other developing countries compared to ours, it is not a stretch to believe there is some effect.
It's pretty obvious to me that the Earth itself will recover. Animals will recover. They come and go. We will also go. If what the majority of scientists say is true, it will be from our own doing, no matter if you believe in global warming or not. It doesn't care about your opinion.
Fact is that the vast majority of all climatologists and scientists studying this field are in agreement that anthropogenic global warming is in fact a reality. As science and any logical being would agree, a consensus of this magnitude among the experts in this field is enough to stand behind. The vast majority of scientists have shown the earth to not be flat, to show that we orbit around the sun, and to show that the earth is billions of years old. Why then would YOU choose to go against the vast majority of scientific research and expertise? Sure, you can choose to believe the earth is flat, we are the center of the universe, the earth is 6,000 years old and global warming is a myth. But, I ask you, WHY? Go join a cult, drink your kool aid and mumble to yourself for all I care, but stay away from me!
- When Gore was in Congress, he initiated the first Congressional hearing on the subject, and brought in climate scientists to talk to politicians about it.
So he's an environmentalist. I shudder at the very thought of hearing bleery-eyed climantologist, selected by one Al Gore , discuss global warming on his behalf. The essential byproduct? An Inconvenient Truth.
- As Vice President, Gore pushed for the Carbon Tax, helped broker the Kyoto Protocol and supported the Triana satellite.
Superb. He introduced the Carbon Tax. A tax on fossil fuels for which there are currently no plausible alternatives. I liken this to much the same way the government handles the tobacco industry. Taxing the hell out of a product it claims to be "harmful and addictive" instead of simply banning it. It just wouldn't be true to form if the government, or any of it's representatives, didn't chastize me for using a particular product yet use every means possible to profit from it.
- RealClimate, a group of 11 climate scientists, said the science of the film is 'remarkably up to date, with reference to current research."
Funny you mention RealClimate. A "group of 11 scientist" renouned for shoddy research. An organization founded on the backs of Stephen Schienburg and Michael Mann.
Interestingly enough, Stephen is well known for his opinion that, "scientists should shade the truth in order to make the world a better place." How compelling.
As for Mr. Mann he may be best known for creating the Hockey Stick diagram used in the Third Assessment, a dialogue on global warming conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Mann, who received many awards and honors for its construction, ironically has taken the position that it doesn’t matter. In addition, the Hockey Stick was not an incidental graphic as many would like you to believe. Ironically the IPCC authors have refused to show any data and methods used to formulate the Hockey Stick graph. And interestingly enough, this very graph has been used as a spearhead for the global warming debate.
You've done nothing more than cut and paste almost verbatim from Wikipedia, Keyword: An Inconvenient Truth, and tried to pass it off as genuine research into the topic. What's even more rediculous is you attempted to comment objectively on others opinions, that were laid before you, and tried to pass them off as your own. Many on this forum, even those who believe global warming exist, believe Al Gore to be a nutjob. Interestingly enough, Al Gore produced An Inconvenient Truth.
Fact is that the vast majority of all climatologists and scientists studying this field are in agreement that anthropogenic global warming is in fact a reality.
Oh contrare. Actually more than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition initiated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine stating that, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
Many scientists, as well as Gore's movie, attempt to show measurements in atmospheric carbon levels during our time here, from real-time measurements, to sedimentary, to go back thousands of years. They have shown a marked increase during periods of our activity, such as the industrial revolution for example.
Hmm... Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere, an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming, show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error. What's this mean? It means either Al Gore isn't a very good pupil, or his teacher chose to give him only pieces of generalized truths in an attempt to pass off an unproven theory as fact. Hence, An Inconvenient Truth.
Go join a cult, drink your kool aid and mumble to yourself for all I care, but stay away from me!
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia collaboratively written by many of its readers many of which may include folks like yourself. Additionaly, trying to present what you have, information about an unproven theory, as fact, from an encyclopedia written by many of the same folks who believe this garbage ,such as William Connelley, adds to your lack of insight on the subject. William Connelley ring another bell? It should. He's one of your 11 scientist. I could debunk this crap all night. No pun intended. But listening to someone trying to convince me with information from a website that is simply rehashing information found in a docudrama produced by Al Gore is purely assenine. I'm afraid you've only humbled yourself.
"OH YEAHHHH!" Grape please!
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Well, because you have no idea what you're talking about.
Refer to the following:
Oh contrare. Actually more than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition initiated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine stating that, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
This petition was co-sponsored by the Marshall Institute, which has received nearly $400,000 from Exxon from 2003-2005. It has been repeatedly sent out in mass mailings over that last eight years, accompanied by a misleading article.
Gore is a nutjob, and global warming is nothing to worry about.
Hell it will probably be a good thing, it'll make winter easier. I vote yes to global warming
its not an election :rolleyes:
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
I'd spend time tearing apart your long post thumbing but I think people can read how ignorant you are by themselves. I'll just pick the first thing you said..
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllNiteThing
- Gore was a pupil of one of the first scientists to study global warming, and to measure carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
This has what to do with his credentials?
Studying under one of the first scientists to study global warming,.. what does that have to do with his knowledge of the subject? Fucking stupid man...
This petition was co-sponsored by the Marshall Institute, which has received nearly $400,000 from Exxon from 2003-2005. It has been repeatedly sent out in mass mailings over that last eight years, accompanied by a misleading article.
I'd spend time tearing apart your long post thumbing but I think people can read how ignorant you are by themselves. I'll just pick the first thing you said..
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllNiteThing
- Gore was a pupil of one of the first scientists to study global warming, and to measure carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
Studying under one of the first scientists to study global warming,.. what does that have to do with his knowledge of the subject? Fucking stupid man...
Fact is you didn't. And you wont. People who use the phrase "I would, but..." are a dime a dozen. Work on getting a diploma first, then tell people how fucking stupid they are all you wish.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
This petition was co-sponsored by the Marshall Institute, which has received nearly $400,000 from Exxon from 2003-2005. It has been repeatedly sent out in mass mailings over that last eight years, accompanied by a misleading article.
Thumbing, your 'rebuttal' to me is a joke, one which I wish to spend as little of my time as possible responding to. Once can't waste all their time correcting psychobabble.
Anyway, your first half a dozen or so quote and response sections to my prior post intend to illustrate Gore's lack of credibility in the field, yet you've failed miserably! He was educated by one of the first to study the phenomena!! That in and of itself is a highlight of one's climatology resume for god's sake. He was a leading proponent of climate change action IN THE US GOVERNMENT! What have YOU done for anything in your life that can backup your opinions?! I thought so.
I don't know why I should bother with you anymore, as you have just shown YOUR bias and lack of research, listing a supposed 'alternative viewpoint' group, when if fact they are just a proxy for big oil. Yawn.
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
Fact is you didn't. And you wont. People who use the phrase "I would, but..." are a dime a dozen. Work on getting a diploma first, then tell people how fucking stupid they are all you wish.
Thumbing, YOUR definition of a rebuttal is quoting every line of a persons' post, and saying how ridiculous is or making a sarcastic comment. Sorry, but unless you start using reasoning and logic, nobody will take you serious on the subject.
Besides, you've been owned.
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
Thumbing, your 'rebuttal' to me is a joke, one which I wish to spend as little of my time as possible responding to. Once can't waste all their time correcting psychobabble.
Anyway, your first half a dozen or so quote and response sections to my prior post intend to illustrate Gore's lack of credibility in the field, yet you've failed miserably! He was educated by one of the first to study the phenomena!! That in and of itself is a highlight of one's climatology resume for god's sake. He was a leading proponent of climate change action IN THE US GOVERNMENT! What have YOU done for anything in your life that can backup your opinions?! I thought so.
I don't know why I should bother with you anymore, as you have just shown YOUR bias and lack of research, listing a supposed 'alternative viewpoint' group, when if fact they are just a proxy for big oil. Yawn.
OWNED! OWNED!
What is this? A Counter-Strike forum? Again, you must have jumped into this thread about half way through. I don't give a dilly shit who Gore heard lecture about the climate. The fact is he has no credentials to his name that makes him any kind of expert on the climate. Nancy Pelosi is a leading proponent for alternative fuel sources yet she crisscrosses the country on a jetliner several times a week. Wow! Shocking isn't it? Not really.
Also, why not quote the fact that Exxon funds the IPCC as well? The real joke here is that you tried to pass off a Wikipedia page about An Inconvenient Truth as some sort of independant dissertation as to why global warming exist.
The bottom line is you wont spend any time responding to what I have to say because your painstaking research consist of little more than cutting and pasting from Wikipedia.
And yes, I am biased. Global Warming does not exist. Unless of course you can prove it to me. Being a liberal on this forum is pretty easy isn't it? I'll just wait for the other "I don't have the time, but..." posters to jump in and pat you on the back and call me a fucking idiot and whatever the hell else it is they're good at doing... Maybe someone else will come along cut and paste some actual dialogue from the independent and unbiased docudrama An Inconvenient Truth?
FUCK YEAH! HEADSHOT!
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Also, why not quote the fact that Exxon funds the IPCC as well? The real joke here is that you tried to pass off a Wikipedia page about An Inconvenient Truth as some sort of independant dissertation as to why global warming exist.
The bottom line is you wont spend any time responding to what I have to say because your painstaking research consist of little more than cutting and pasting from Wikipedia.
Are you kidding me? :rolleyes: I know you make up your own stories to justify your beliefs, but come on! Take a breath before you type, and think! Nowhere did I use Wikipedia to, as you say, create "some sort of independant dissertation as to why global warming exist." I used it to gather facts to back up my assertion that Mr. Gore does indeed have sufficient credentials to be commenting on global warming. What I posted are facts, whether or not you choose to believe them is not my problem.
As for the rest of your post, again I reiterate, you may believe we are the center of the universe, the Earth is flat, it is 6,000 years old and global warming does not exist. Drink your kool-aid and click the heels of your cult-issued reebok's together and say 'there's no such thing as global warming, there's no such thing as global warming".
I'll take my chances with the consensus and expertise of the scientific community on global climate, thanks.
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
Also, why not quote the fact that Exxon funds the IPCC as well?
Proof? Links please.
You know what's funny is that all of the top climatologists in the world, the IPCC and now even your buddies at big oil in Exxon, have accepted the reality that is global warming. Amazing, isn't it? Apparently you are intellectually head and shoulders above all of those people. Bravo to you, young Einstein.
I'm not the one that needs to take a breath. I told you in an earlier post that I agreed the Earth is warmer now than it was 30 years ago. I.E. - "global warming"
I also told you the Earth was cooling in a 30 year period before that. I hardly believe the CO2 output by humans was decreasing during those 30 years.
There is no evidence that we're causing the current warming trend. The only evidence scientists give is that the CO2 humans have been emitting the previous 30 years has contributed to it. Maybe it is? Was the CO2 emitted the 30 years prior contributing to the cooling period? It had to have been using the current logic. Then again, that's why no one conveniently wants to talk about global cooling anymore. The simple fact of the matter is is that no one knows why the Earth was cooling then. And they sure as hell don't know why it's warming now.
The base of this argument resides in the fact that the current warming trend is leading to the end of the Earth. If you think that's bullshit, then check Al's countdown. Assuming that from nothing more than scientific theory is utter bullshit in itself. Any real scientist knows that. The fact that the earth is warming currently is nothing more than the cycle that has always existed. The next 30 years may as well be another cooling stage. No one knows.
I leave you with a quote by Stephen Schneider: "Scientists should shade the truth in order to make the world a better place."
Of course, who really believes he uses this logic in his work with RealClimate?
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
So you're a Christian too? I'll let you fumble with that one for a minute. Make sure you understand the question before you respond.
I understand perfectly what you're getting at.
No, because the majority of the world (supposedly) is Christian, I do not subscribe to that belief (though I was raised as such). Because I partially base my opinion on the fact of a majority consensus within the scientific community does not automatically mean I, as a rule, follow 'consensus opinion'. Again, the black or white thinking of conservatives rears its ugly head. There are shades of grey! I can put stock in the majority of one group of people, but not another. That's not hypocrisy, that's reasoning.
24 years old, mid-life crisis
nowadays hits you when you're young
Comments
What? The guy knows what he's talking about. The only real debate here is about whether he deserves a PhD or a DSc after his name.
Do you have anything relevant to contribute?
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
"Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling."
...makes you a babbling fool. You're persistent though, if not downright repetitive. I'll give you that.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Why would anyone believe anything this man says after he obviously lies about his credentials. I tell you what -- I'll just say you have a point and leave you alone because I feel bad for the way you were torn up and owned tonight. Better luck tomorrow, sis.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Chirp chirp! Where's your knowledge?? Chirp chirp! Anyone know where Rush left his insight!?
We're waiting...
If you'll excuse me I'm going to retire to my study and finish my copy of Earth in the Balance.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Besides, Bill Clinton lied to a grand jury and he's still the greatest President we've ever had, if not the most intelligent person on the face of the Earth. Who are you to claim this guy doesn't know what he's talking about because he has a PhD? I listen to the guys with PhD's, not canarys.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
A PhD in a scientific discipline is equivalent to a DSc in the US, and it is really the only doctorate there is in most of the rest of the world. It may literally stand for Doctor of Philosophy, but that's not what it means these days.
But yes, sounds like this guy is full of shit. I notice he has a bachelor of arts degree, not a science degree. It seems hard to imagine how you become a leading climatologist with no background in science.
-C Addison
A Doctor of Science in England seems to have some distinction that this guy certainly hasn't achieved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Science
He is not a leading climatologist, it seems there is little to nothing published by him.
Here is and article about Ball in the Globe and Mail canadian newspaper:
http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html
(the newspaper charges for the original article)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20060812.COVER12%2FTPStory%2F%3Fquery%3DCharles%2BMontgomery&ord=4490155&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false
- Gore was a pupil of one of the first scientists to study global warming, and to measure carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
- When Gore was in Congress, he initiated the first Congressional hearing on the subject, and brought in climate scientists to talk to politicians about it.
- Wrote a book 'Earth in the Balance', discussing numerous environmental topics which reached the bestsellers list.
- As Vice President, Gore pushed for the Carbon Tax, helped broker the Kyoto Protocol and supported the Triana satellite.
In regards to his film, an Inconvenient Truth:
- The AP contacted more than 100 top climatologists about the films accuracy, they all said he conveyed the science correctly.
- RealClimate, a group of 11 climate scientists, said the science of the film is 'remarkably up to date, with reference to current research."
So, yes, Al Gore has a bit more credibility and has certainly done a lot more to back up his position than you would like to claim or believe.
Fact is that the vast majority of all climatologists and scientists studying this field are in agreement that anthropogenic global warming is in fact a reality. As science and any logical being would agree, a consensus of this magnitude among the experts in this field is enough to stand behind. The vast majority of scientists have shown the earth to not be flat, to show that we orbit around the sun, and to show that the earth is billions of years old. Why then would YOU choose to go against the vast majority of scientific research and expertise? Sure, you can choose to believe the earth is flat, we are the center of the universe, the earth is 6,000 years old and global warming is a myth. But, I ask you, WHY? Go join a cult, drink your kool aid and mumble to yourself for all I care, but stay away from me!
The only real debate is whether man's effect is having as much or more of an effect as that of the natural carbon cycle (i.e. volcanic activity/natural temperature changes). Many scientists, as well as Gore's movie, attempt to show measurements in atmospheric carbon levels during our time here, from real-time measurements, to sedimentary, to go back thousands of years. They have shown a marked increase during periods of our activity, such as the industrial revolution for example.
Sure it is difficult to imagine our interference to have an impact in the vastness of the planet, but when you think of how many people there are now, the amount of carbon that is taken out and pumped into the air, disrupting the natural carbon life cycle, and how much more pollution is produced by other developing countries compared to ours, it is not a stretch to believe there is some effect.
It's pretty obvious to me that the Earth itself will recover. Animals will recover. They come and go. We will also go. If what the majority of scientists say is true, it will be from our own doing, no matter if you believe in global warming or not. It doesn't care about your opinion.
nowadays hits you when you're young
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
Gracias.
nowadays hits you when you're young
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth
This has what to do with his credentials?
So he's an environmentalist. I shudder at the very thought of hearing bleery-eyed climantologist, selected by one Al Gore , discuss global warming on his behalf. The essential byproduct? An Inconvenient Truth.
Wow. Valley of the Dolls is the 10th best selling book of all time selling more than 30 million copys. The correlation? They're both fiction.
Superb. He introduced the Carbon Tax. A tax on fossil fuels for which there are currently no plausible alternatives. I liken this to much the same way the government handles the tobacco industry. Taxing the hell out of a product it claims to be "harmful and addictive" instead of simply banning it. It just wouldn't be true to form if the government, or any of it's representatives, didn't chastize me for using a particular product yet use every means possible to profit from it.
In regards to his film, an Inconvenient Truth:
Name, rank and serial numbers please. These are the kind of random useless facts that are... well... useless.
Funny you mention RealClimate. A "group of 11 scientist" renouned for shoddy research. An organization founded on the backs of Stephen Schienburg and Michael Mann.
Interestingly enough, Stephen is well known for his opinion that, "scientists should shade the truth in order to make the world a better place." How compelling.
As for Mr. Mann he may be best known for creating the Hockey Stick diagram used in the Third Assessment, a dialogue on global warming conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Mann, who received many awards and honors for its construction, ironically has taken the position that it doesn’t matter. In addition, the Hockey Stick was not an incidental graphic as many would like you to believe. Ironically the IPCC authors have refused to show any data and methods used to formulate the Hockey Stick graph. And interestingly enough, this very graph has been used as a spearhead for the global warming debate.
You've done nothing more than cut and paste almost verbatim from Wikipedia, Keyword: An Inconvenient Truth, and tried to pass it off as genuine research into the topic. What's even more rediculous is you attempted to comment objectively on others opinions, that were laid before you, and tried to pass them off as your own. Many on this forum, even those who believe global warming exist, believe Al Gore to be a nutjob. Interestingly enough, Al Gore produced An Inconvenient Truth.
Well, because you have no idea what you're talking about.
Refer to the following:
Oh contrare. Actually more than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition initiated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine stating that, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
You may view that petition here: http://www.oism.org
Is the Earth generally warmer today than it was in 1983? Yes.
Was the Earth generally cooler in 1975 than it was in 1955? Yes.
What do those two statements mean besides being contradictory? Nothing.
Hmm... Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere, an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming, show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error. What's this mean? It means either Al Gore isn't a very good pupil, or his teacher chose to give him only pieces of generalized truths in an attempt to pass off an unproven theory as fact. Hence, An Inconvenient Truth.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia collaboratively written by many of its readers many of which may include folks like yourself. Additionaly, trying to present what you have, information about an unproven theory, as fact, from an encyclopedia written by many of the same folks who believe this garbage ,such as William Connelley, adds to your lack of insight on the subject. William Connelley ring another bell? It should. He's one of your 11 scientist. I could debunk this crap all night. No pun intended. But listening to someone trying to convince me with information from a website that is simply rehashing information found in a docudrama produced by Al Gore is purely assenine. I'm afraid you've only humbled yourself.
"OH YEAHHHH!" Grape please!
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
New to the board, hi.
Gore is a nutjob, and global warming is nothing to worry about.
Hell it will probably be a good thing, it'll make winter easier. I vote yes to global warming
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
This petition was co-sponsored by the Marshall Institute, which has received nearly $400,000 from Exxon from 2003-2005. It has been repeatedly sent out in mass mailings over that last eight years, accompanied by a misleading article.
Any yayhoo can sign this petition. You can too:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm
its not an election :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllNiteThing
- Gore was a pupil of one of the first scientists to study global warming, and to measure carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
Studying under one of the first scientists to study global warming,.. what does that have to do with his knowledge of the subject? Fucking stupid man...
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
Exxon funds the IPCC as well. What's your point? We can bitch about who funds who until the cows come home.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Fact is you didn't. And you wont. People who use the phrase "I would, but..." are a dime a dozen. Work on getting a diploma first, then tell people how fucking stupid they are all you wish.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Owned!
Thumbing, your 'rebuttal' to me is a joke, one which I wish to spend as little of my time as possible responding to. Once can't waste all their time correcting psychobabble.
Anyway, your first half a dozen or so quote and response sections to my prior post intend to illustrate Gore's lack of credibility in the field, yet you've failed miserably! He was educated by one of the first to study the phenomena!! That in and of itself is a highlight of one's climatology resume for god's sake. He was a leading proponent of climate change action IN THE US GOVERNMENT! What have YOU done for anything in your life that can backup your opinions?! I thought so.
Here are some names if you want to do background checks on them. Warning, if may require you to read a bit: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-06-27-gore-science-truth_x.htm
I don't know why I should bother with you anymore, as you have just shown YOUR bias and lack of research, listing a supposed 'alternative viewpoint' group, when if fact they are just a proxy for big oil. Yawn.
nowadays hits you when you're young
Thumbing, YOUR definition of a rebuttal is quoting every line of a persons' post, and saying how ridiculous is or making a sarcastic comment. Sorry, but unless you start using reasoning and logic, nobody will take you serious on the subject.
Besides, you've been owned.
nowadays hits you when you're young
OWNED! OWNED!
What is this? A Counter-Strike forum? Again, you must have jumped into this thread about half way through. I don't give a dilly shit who Gore heard lecture about the climate. The fact is he has no credentials to his name that makes him any kind of expert on the climate. Nancy Pelosi is a leading proponent for alternative fuel sources yet she crisscrosses the country on a jetliner several times a week. Wow! Shocking isn't it? Not really.
Also, why not quote the fact that Exxon funds the IPCC as well? The real joke here is that you tried to pass off a Wikipedia page about An Inconvenient Truth as some sort of independant dissertation as to why global warming exist.
The bottom line is you wont spend any time responding to what I have to say because your painstaking research consist of little more than cutting and pasting from Wikipedia.
And yes, I am biased. Global Warming does not exist. Unless of course you can prove it to me. Being a liberal on this forum is pretty easy isn't it? I'll just wait for the other "I don't have the time, but..." posters to jump in and pat you on the back and call me a fucking idiot and whatever the hell else it is they're good at doing... Maybe someone else will come along cut and paste some actual dialogue from the independent and unbiased docudrama An Inconvenient Truth?
FUCK YEAH! HEADSHOT!
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Are you kidding me? :rolleyes: I know you make up your own stories to justify your beliefs, but come on! Take a breath before you type, and think! Nowhere did I use Wikipedia to, as you say, create "some sort of independant dissertation as to why global warming exist." I used it to gather facts to back up my assertion that Mr. Gore does indeed have sufficient credentials to be commenting on global warming. What I posted are facts, whether or not you choose to believe them is not my problem.
As for the rest of your post, again I reiterate, you may believe we are the center of the universe, the Earth is flat, it is 6,000 years old and global warming does not exist. Drink your kool-aid and click the heels of your cult-issued reebok's together and say 'there's no such thing as global warming, there's no such thing as global warming".
I'll take my chances with the consensus and expertise of the scientific community on global climate, thanks.
nowadays hits you when you're young
Proof? Links please.
You know what's funny is that all of the top climatologists in the world, the IPCC and now even your buddies at big oil in Exxon, have accepted the reality that is global warming. Amazing, isn't it? Apparently you are intellectually head and shoulders above all of those people. Bravo to you, young Einstein.
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Newsroom/NewsReleases/corp_nr_mr_climate_ipcc.asp
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4539329.html
nowadays hits you when you're young
Whoa. What exactly did I make up?
So you're a Christian too? I'll let you fumble with that one for a minute. Make sure you understand the question before you respond.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
True, very true.
naděje umírá poslední
I also told you the Earth was cooling in a 30 year period before that. I hardly believe the CO2 output by humans was decreasing during those 30 years.
There is no evidence that we're causing the current warming trend. The only evidence scientists give is that the CO2 humans have been emitting the previous 30 years has contributed to it. Maybe it is? Was the CO2 emitted the 30 years prior contributing to the cooling period? It had to have been using the current logic. Then again, that's why no one conveniently wants to talk about global cooling anymore. The simple fact of the matter is is that no one knows why the Earth was cooling then. And they sure as hell don't know why it's warming now.
The base of this argument resides in the fact that the current warming trend is leading to the end of the Earth. If you think that's bullshit, then check Al's countdown. Assuming that from nothing more than scientific theory is utter bullshit in itself. Any real scientist knows that. The fact that the earth is warming currently is nothing more than the cycle that has always existed. The next 30 years may as well be another cooling stage. No one knows.
I leave you with a quote by Stephen Schneider: "Scientists should shade the truth in order to make the world a better place."
Of course, who really believes he uses this logic in his work with RealClimate?
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
I understand perfectly what you're getting at.
No, because the majority of the world (supposedly) is Christian, I do not subscribe to that belief (though I was raised as such). Because I partially base my opinion on the fact of a majority consensus within the scientific community does not automatically mean I, as a rule, follow 'consensus opinion'. Again, the black or white thinking of conservatives rears its ugly head. There are shades of grey! I can put stock in the majority of one group of people, but not another. That's not hypocrisy, that's reasoning.
nowadays hits you when you're young