- Banned
- #61
Excellent article, thanks a bunch!
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gore science fiction.....criminal??
- Thread starter skookerasbil
- Start date
Excellent article, thanks a bunch!
- Banned
- #62
Shilling for the oil companies is no different than saying Gore is doing it for the money.
And I am sorry...but I disagree....it is not the majority of the world scientific community.....there are as many that disagree as agree.
No different than the fact that there were as many economists that disagreed with the stimulus that agreed with it.
Actually, as per Cuyo's link, 90% of the world scientific community agrees. Of course, I'm sure there's a wide margin of error on that poll, but let's say it's off by 10%... that's still 80% of the world scientific community...
Oldandtired
Rookie
- Banned
- #63
Shilling for the oil companies is no different than saying Gore is doing it for the money.
And I am sorry...but I disagree....it is not the majority of the world scientific community.....there are as many that disagree as agree.
No different than the fact that there were as many economists that disagreed with the stimulus that agreed with it.
Actually, as per Cuyo's link, 90% of the world scientific community agrees. Of course, I'm sure there's a wide margin of error on that poll, but let's say it's off by 10%... that's still 80% of the world scientific community...
I will read the article....but I must question whether or not that is based on the data that some have already proven to be skewed.
I am sure that 100% of the scinetific community does not actually analyze and collect data...they theorize based on data offered to them....and their hypotheses are based on the accuracy of the data offered to them.
I am sure you see my point there?
- Thread starter
- #64
HOLY MOTHER OF GOD...........................
this thead is infected with numerous folks who have the combined political IQ of a handball!!!! People are on this thread talking about "consensus in the scientific community". We might as well be discussing people contemplating their own navels ..........s0ns..............
The only thing that matters is what the consensus is amongst the people = will America pursue public policy based upon a hail mary pass guess???!!! Is America going to be prepared to sign off on green public policy that will kill another 2.1 milliion MORE jobs????
Im thinking the chances are 1) slim 2) none.
Look at ANY poll when the question includes indivuals contributing to the "costs" of global warming!!! About 493 people nationwide will be on board!!!
So............you see............the science doesnt mean sh!t anymore!!!
this thead is infected with numerous folks who have the combined political IQ of a handball!!!! People are on this thread talking about "consensus in the scientific community". We might as well be discussing people contemplating their own navels ..........s0ns..............
The only thing that matters is what the consensus is amongst the people = will America pursue public policy based upon a hail mary pass guess???!!! Is America going to be prepared to sign off on green public policy that will kill another 2.1 milliion MORE jobs????
Im thinking the chances are 1) slim 2) none.
Look at ANY poll when the question includes indivuals contributing to the "costs" of global warming!!! About 493 people nationwide will be on board!!!
So............you see............the science doesnt mean sh!t anymore!!!
- Thread starter
- #65
Here is the "consensus" in the court of American public opinion!!!!
- Banned
- #66
I will read the article....but I must question whether or not that is based on the data that some have already proven to be skewed.
I am sure that 100% of the scinetific community does not actually analyze and collect data...they theorize based on data offered to them....and their hypotheses are based on the accuracy of the data offered to them.
I am sure you see my point there?
I do, and as I said, I admit the possibility that the entire theory may be wrong.
I don't think that scenario is likely, but it is possible.
But this whole problem may disappear in the very near future thanks to good old American ingenuity, in the form of the "Bloom Box":
Bloom Debuts Clean Energy Power Box -- Clean Energy -- InformationWeek
Like other fuel-cell technology, the Bloom box produces electricity through an electrochemical process that uses hydrogen, natural gas, methane, or other fuel. Power is produced at a fraction of the emissions of a typical power plant and the fuel-to-electricity efficiency is much higher, from 50% to 70%. In applications designed to capture and use the system's waste heat, which is as high as 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit, the overall fuel use efficiencies could top 80% to 85%.
Looks very exciting altogether.
txlonghorn
Senior Member
- Mar 9, 2009
- 3,042
- 400
- 48
And apparently, the left wing ignorance, which is the same EVERY week, is to defend a fraud.
However, if the Global Warmers of the world were somehow representative of the right, I wouldn't be surprised if you would be on the opposing side of it. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum it fell on, I would be the first to call it GARBAGE and SHAMEFUL to profit from it.
The fact that you can't admit that Gore and all the others who manipulated data in an attempt to establish a theoritcal outcome as fact is laughable.
And if Al Gore and the majority of the World Scientific community are CORRECT, then by your logic Sen Inholfe and anyone else shilling for the Oil Companies are guilty of "Fraud", and should be criminally liable. Correct?
What do you mean "IF"?? Al Gore doesn't say "IF". There's no IF in global warming!!!
Are you saying that the only disagreement with the GW'ers is to keep the oil companies going? Are we to believe that GW is going to shut down the oil industry???
PLEASE!!!!!!! But if it makes you feel better...YES...any fraud committed by Inholfe should be investigated and if found to be legitimate, should be prosecuted. Just know that it won't, because you'd have to prosecute almost every polititcian in the last 40 years...
Al Gore has made MILLIONS....M I L L I O N S on this. And if you think he's going around say "IF I'm right" then you haven't been listening. He's quoted every source, credible or not, he can find to try to solidify his position so he can keep selling books, making movies and booking speaking engagements. He's as guilty as a drug dealer!
Only he's not just looking for junkies, he's trying to infect the whole world with this shit.
Cuyo
Training a Guineapig army
And apparently, the left wing ignorance, which is the same EVERY week, is to defend a fraud.
However, if the Global Warmers of the world were somehow representative of the right, I wouldn't be surprised if you would be on the opposing side of it. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum it fell on, I would be the first to call it GARBAGE and SHAMEFUL to profit from it.
The fact that you can't admit that Gore and all the others who manipulated data in an attempt to establish a theoritcal outcome as fact is laughable.
And if Al Gore and the majority of the World Scientific community are CORRECT, then by your logic Sen Inholfe and anyone else shilling for the Oil Companies are guilty of "Fraud", and should be criminally liable. Correct?
What do you mean "IF"?? Al Gore doesn't say "IF". There's no IF in global warming!!!
Are you saying that the only disagreement with the GW'ers is to keep the oil companies going? Are we to believe that GW is going to shut down the oil industry???
PLEASE!!!!!!! But if it makes you feel better...YES...any fraud committed by Inholfe should be investigated and if found to be legitimate, should be prosecuted. Just know that it won't, because you'd have to prosecute almost every polititcian in the last 40 years...
Al Gore has made MILLIONS....M I L L I O N S on this. And if you think he's going around say "IF I'm right" then you haven't been listening. He's quoted every source, credible or not, he can find to try to solidify his position so he can keep selling books, making movies and booking speaking engagements. He's as guilty as a drug dealer!
Only he's not just looking for junkies, he's trying to infect the whole world with this shit.
He's a heretic! Lock his ass up!
(See also: Galileo)
- Banned
- #69
- Jan 19, 2010
- 67,598
- 61,831
- 3,605
Al Gore betrayed this country, he played on our fears!
- Thread starter
- #71
PLease see highlighted narrative below, just to further display the lack of common sense of the k00ks..................
Also..........ps. On Drudge this AM "Britain to ban use of Gore film in classrooms!!!"
LMAO..............suprised??
ANALYSIS-Scientists examine causes for lull in warming 25 Feb 2010 14:59:01 GMT
Source: Reuters
* Exact causes unknown for lack of warming from 1999-2008
* The underlying reason for cold winter not known
* Climate science in focus after email scandal, errors
By Gerard Wynn and Alister Doyle
LONDON/OSLO, Feb 25 (Reuters) - Climate scientists must do more to work out how exceptionally cold winters or a dip in world temperatures fit their theories of global warming, if they are to persuade an increasingly sceptical public.
At stake is public belief that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet, and political momentum to act as governments struggle to agree a climate treaty which could direct trillions of dollars into renewable energy, away from fossil fuels.
Public conviction of global warming's risks may have been undermined by an error in a U.N. panel report exaggerating the pace of melt of Himalayan glaciers and by the disclosure of hacked emails revealing scientists sniping at sceptics, who leapt on these as evidence of data fixing.
Scientists said they must explain better how a freezing winter this year in parts of the northern hemisphere and a break in a rising trend in global temperatures since 1998 can happen when heat-trapping gases are pouring into the atmosphere.
"There is a lack of consensus," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, on why global temperatures have not matched a peak set in 1998, or in 2005 according to one U.S. analysis. For a table of world temperatures: [ID:nLDE6050Y5]
Part of the explanation could be a failure to account for rapid warming in parts of the Arctic, where sea ice had melted, and where there were fewer monitoring stations, he said.
"I think we need better analysis of what's going on on a routine basis so that everyone, politicians and the general public, are informed about our current understanding of what is happening, more statements in a much quicker fashion instead of waiting for another six years for the next IPCC report."
The latest, fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was published in 2007 and the next is due in 2014.
The proportion of British adults who had no doubt climate change was happening had dropped in January to 31 percent from 44 percent in January 2009, an Ipsos MORI poll showed this week.
HOTTEST DECADE ON RECORD
The decade 2000-2009 was the hottest since 1850 as a result of warming through the 1980s and 1990s which has since peaked, says the World Meteorological Organisation.
British Hadley Centre scientists said last year that there was no warming from 1999-2008, after allowing for extreme, natural weather patterns. Temperatures should have risen by a widely estimated 0.2 degrees Centigrade, given a build up of manmade greenhouse gases.
"Solar might be one part of it," said the Hadley's Jeff Knight, adding that changes in the way data was gathered could be a factor, as well as shifts in the heat stored by oceans.
The sun goes through phases in activity, and since 2001 has been in a downturn meaning it may have heated the earth a little less, scientists say.
"We've not put our finger precisely on what has changed," Knight said. "(But) If you add all these things together ... there's nothing really there to challenge the idea that there's going to be large warming in the 21st century."
Melting Arctic ice was evidence for continuing change, regardless of observed temperatures, said Stein Sandven, head of the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center in Norway.
"The long-term change for the Arctic sea ice has been very consistent. It shows a decline over these (past) three decades especially in the summer. In the past 3-4 years Arctic sea ice has been below the average for the last 30 years."
Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, told Reuters that the IPCC stood by its 2007 findings that it is more than 90 percent certain that human activities are the main cause of global warming in the past 50 years.
"I think the findings are overall very robust. We've made one stupid error on the Himalayan glaciers. I think that there is otherwise so much solid science." The IPCC wrongly predicted that Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035.
NATURAL CAUSES?
One long-running doubter of the threat of climate change, Richard Lindzen, meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said a lull in warming was unsurprising, given an earlier "obsessing about tenths of a degree" in the 1980s and early 1990s.
The world warmed 0.7-0.8 degrees Celsius over the last century. Lindzen expected analysis to show in a few years' time that recent warming had natural causes. "It just fluctuates. I think the best explanation is the ocean. The timescale for ocean circulations can be decades."
He dismissed recent ice melt over a short, 30-year record.
Pachauri said that scientists had to unpick manmade global warming from natural influences -- such as the sun and cyclical weather patterns -- also dubbed "natural variability".
"Natural variability is not magic, there is movement of energy around the climate system and we should be able to track it," said Trenberth.
Trenberth attributed the cold winter to an extraordinary weather pattern not seen since 1977 which had curbed prevailing westerly winds across the northern hemisphere, and said that the underlying cause was "one we don't have answers to."
(For Reuters latest environment blogs, click on: Environment Forum | Analysis & Opinion | Reuters)
Forgetting everything else.............how fcukking convenient is it that these Intergovernmental Panel Reports come out every 7-8 years!!!!!!
Also..........ps. On Drudge this AM "Britain to ban use of Gore film in classrooms!!!"
LMAO..............suprised??
ANALYSIS-Scientists examine causes for lull in warming 25 Feb 2010 14:59:01 GMT
Source: Reuters
* Exact causes unknown for lack of warming from 1999-2008
* The underlying reason for cold winter not known
* Climate science in focus after email scandal, errors
By Gerard Wynn and Alister Doyle
LONDON/OSLO, Feb 25 (Reuters) - Climate scientists must do more to work out how exceptionally cold winters or a dip in world temperatures fit their theories of global warming, if they are to persuade an increasingly sceptical public.
At stake is public belief that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet, and political momentum to act as governments struggle to agree a climate treaty which could direct trillions of dollars into renewable energy, away from fossil fuels.
Public conviction of global warming's risks may have been undermined by an error in a U.N. panel report exaggerating the pace of melt of Himalayan glaciers and by the disclosure of hacked emails revealing scientists sniping at sceptics, who leapt on these as evidence of data fixing.
Scientists said they must explain better how a freezing winter this year in parts of the northern hemisphere and a break in a rising trend in global temperatures since 1998 can happen when heat-trapping gases are pouring into the atmosphere.
"There is a lack of consensus," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, on why global temperatures have not matched a peak set in 1998, or in 2005 according to one U.S. analysis. For a table of world temperatures: [ID:nLDE6050Y5]
Part of the explanation could be a failure to account for rapid warming in parts of the Arctic, where sea ice had melted, and where there were fewer monitoring stations, he said.
"I think we need better analysis of what's going on on a routine basis so that everyone, politicians and the general public, are informed about our current understanding of what is happening, more statements in a much quicker fashion instead of waiting for another six years for the next IPCC report."
The latest, fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was published in 2007 and the next is due in 2014.
The proportion of British adults who had no doubt climate change was happening had dropped in January to 31 percent from 44 percent in January 2009, an Ipsos MORI poll showed this week.
HOTTEST DECADE ON RECORD
The decade 2000-2009 was the hottest since 1850 as a result of warming through the 1980s and 1990s which has since peaked, says the World Meteorological Organisation.
British Hadley Centre scientists said last year that there was no warming from 1999-2008, after allowing for extreme, natural weather patterns. Temperatures should have risen by a widely estimated 0.2 degrees Centigrade, given a build up of manmade greenhouse gases.
"Solar might be one part of it," said the Hadley's Jeff Knight, adding that changes in the way data was gathered could be a factor, as well as shifts in the heat stored by oceans.
The sun goes through phases in activity, and since 2001 has been in a downturn meaning it may have heated the earth a little less, scientists say.
"We've not put our finger precisely on what has changed," Knight said. "(But) If you add all these things together ... there's nothing really there to challenge the idea that there's going to be large warming in the 21st century."
Melting Arctic ice was evidence for continuing change, regardless of observed temperatures, said Stein Sandven, head of the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center in Norway.
"The long-term change for the Arctic sea ice has been very consistent. It shows a decline over these (past) three decades especially in the summer. In the past 3-4 years Arctic sea ice has been below the average for the last 30 years."
Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, told Reuters that the IPCC stood by its 2007 findings that it is more than 90 percent certain that human activities are the main cause of global warming in the past 50 years.
"I think the findings are overall very robust. We've made one stupid error on the Himalayan glaciers. I think that there is otherwise so much solid science." The IPCC wrongly predicted that Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035.
NATURAL CAUSES?
One long-running doubter of the threat of climate change, Richard Lindzen, meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said a lull in warming was unsurprising, given an earlier "obsessing about tenths of a degree" in the 1980s and early 1990s.
The world warmed 0.7-0.8 degrees Celsius over the last century. Lindzen expected analysis to show in a few years' time that recent warming had natural causes. "It just fluctuates. I think the best explanation is the ocean. The timescale for ocean circulations can be decades."
He dismissed recent ice melt over a short, 30-year record.
Pachauri said that scientists had to unpick manmade global warming from natural influences -- such as the sun and cyclical weather patterns -- also dubbed "natural variability".
"Natural variability is not magic, there is movement of energy around the climate system and we should be able to track it," said Trenberth.
Trenberth attributed the cold winter to an extraordinary weather pattern not seen since 1977 which had curbed prevailing westerly winds across the northern hemisphere, and said that the underlying cause was "one we don't have answers to."
(For Reuters latest environment blogs, click on: Environment Forum | Analysis & Opinion | Reuters)
Forgetting everything else.............how fcukking convenient is it that these Intergovernmental Panel Reports come out every 7-8 years!!!!!!
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #72
Al Gore's film likely to be banned in UK schools!!!!!
UKIP would ban Al Gore film in schools - Telegraph
LOL.......accordingly, in all the world, that would leave only the hopelessly duped in the USA to continue to be enamoured with this hoax!!!!
UKIP would ban Al Gore film in schools - Telegraph
LOL.......accordingly, in all the world, that would leave only the hopelessly duped in the USA to continue to be enamoured with this hoax!!!!
Thanks for posting this thread. It demonstrates two points, 1) republican senators are not climate experts and 2) they waste time and money as they eat at the corporate trough.
I will tell him that on his site soon.
==================================
BBC - Ethical Man blog: In praise of scepticism
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Excllent piece 400,000 year view global warming
James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss | Video on TED.com
"Yes. Earth is already showing many signs of worldwide climate change... Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html
I will tell him that on his site soon.
==================================
BBC - Ethical Man blog: In praise of scepticism
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Excllent piece 400,000 year view global warming
James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss | Video on TED.com
"Yes. Earth is already showing many signs of worldwide climate change... Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #74
Thanks for posting this thread. It demonstrates two points, 1) republican senators are not climate experts and 2) they waste time and money as they eat at the corporate trough.
I will tell him that on his site soon.
==================================
BBC - Ethical Man blog: In praise of scepticism
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Excllent piece 400,000 year view global warming
James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss | Video on TED.com
"Yes. Earth is already showing many signs of worldwide climate change... Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies."
Global Warming Fast Facts
One of the hopelessly duped ^^^^
s0n.........you display epic fAiL understanding that there is no such thing as a climate expert!!!!
the classic oxymoron!!! ( unless you belive there are experts in Russian Roulette!!!!)
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #76
bump................ for hysterical value!!!
ROFL, you do realize that, if anything, it's Inholfe who's the "Flat Earther" in this scenario, right?
Gore would be the one promoting the new scientific theory, or the "World is Round" type argument, while Inholfe and the rest of you are the "World is Flat" crowd.
No matter who is correct, that is the situation.
You do realize, that there is no proof that MAN has anything to do with temperature change on a global scale, right?
No you don't, which is why people like you are flat earthers, you 'invented' a problem and solutions to it, without first proving the problem exists.all those highly trained scientists making it all up
yes for funding and a hoax job, look Gore made millions from this scam and he should have to pay with prison time that crook!!! throw these liars and frauds in prison and this type of hoax won't happen again. With people like this you can not believe in science anymore. is it real or is it just another hoax, that is what we will be saying from now on because of this scandel.
Yeah......right.........because it snowed in DC and Florida.
Did you stop to consider that the Olympics in Vancouver were SUPPOSED to have snow, yet didn't? They had to truck it in and make it themselves.
DC isn't supposed to snow like it did, and Vancouver was but didn't.
Yeah you stupid bitch kee kee, tell me again how much it's a "hoax". Where did you grow up, because apparently the educational system where you came from SUCKED, as it didn't teach you critical thought.
Did you stop to consider that the Olympics in Vancouver were SUPPOSED to have snow, yet didn't? They had to truck it in and make it themselves.
DC isn't supposed to snow like it did, and Vancouver was but didn't.
Yeah you stupid bitch kee kee, tell me again how much it's a "hoax". Where did you grow up, because apparently the educational system where you came from SUCKED, as it didn't teach you critical thought.
Conspiracist
Snuggle weather rocks!
Yeah......right.........because it snowed in DC and Florida.
Did you stop to consider that the Olympics in Vancouver were SUPPOSED to have snow, yet didn't? They had to truck it in and make it themselves.
DC isn't supposed to snow like it did, and Vancouver was but didn't.
Yeah you stupid bitch kee kee, tell me again how much it's a "hoax". Where did you grow up, because apparently the educational system where you came from SUCKED, as it didn't teach you critical thought.
Ahhhh, weather changes! Caused by man!? Or earth and the atmosphere doing what it has done forever and ever? OH SHIT WE FOUND EXTRA CO2 IN THE SNOW SAMPLES! RAISE TAXES, SHUT DOWN THE FACTORIES!
Let's not forget to shoot this girl here before she emits too much gas and changes the weather on Mount Everest!
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 35
- Replies
- 23
- Views
- 231
- Replies
- 379
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 31
- Views
- 112
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8045
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-