Weather Channel Owner Suing Al Gore For Fraud....

[TheGoodShepherd]

Second, I'll answer your childish questions by saying the climate is the pattern and variation of weather in a region of a long period of time. Weather is phenomena occuring in the atmosphere for a short period of time.

I'm certified in Geography

That's about right. What makes it obvious you are a geographer and not in the field of climate science is the assumptions you make. A perfect example of your lack of knowledge on the issue is your tendency to post links about cold temperatures in Canada, or snow in wherever. As if you think that proves climate science claims wrong, or destroys the credibility of climate science methodology. Well, it does not.

A big, and I think rather embarrassing assumption you make is that you think it is hard or as difficult to predict climate as it is to predict weather. It is, in fact, extremely EASY to predict climate as opposed to weather.

To put it in laymen's terms. Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.

Dice (for this example, one dice only) is a good way to think about it. If you throw the dice ten times, which number is most often thrown? What is the mean of the scores?

Now if you start throwing the dice more, the closer the mean (average) gets to 3.5, because there is an equal opportunity of throwing any 6 of the numbers on the next throw. While it is very hard to predict what the next thrown number will be, it's incredibly easy to predict that the mean will still be 3.5.

Now, associate weather types rather than numbers with the sides of the dice. We'll mark the sides of our 'weather dice' in terms of cloud cover. We'll have 0 per cent cloud cover, 20 per cent, 40 per cent, 60 per cent, 80 per cent and 100 percent.

Is it possible for BrianH to predict what the weather will be on the next throw? Just like with the numbers on the dice, there is an equal chance of each amount of cloud cover. It is severly difficult for BrianH to predict what the weather will be on the next throw.

However, we know climate is the average of the weather over a long period of time.

Which brings Brian to the next question. Can Brian predict the climate? We know Brian probably could not make a weather forecast. But Brian could make a climate prediction. He could say 50 per cent cloud cover with confidence.

The climate is the long term average. A single throw of our 'weather sided' dice won't affect the climate very much. In the exact same way we can have a very hot summer one year and a cold one the next without the climate (the weather we expect) changing.

The point is, you have a lot of homework to do on the subject of climate science. If you know weather is what we get and climate is what we expect. You would not be foolish enough to claim, if I can use the dice analogy, that one individual roll of the dice is a good way of measuring the long term average.

Climate is easier to predict than the weather. Had you been more qualified to speak on the matter, you would have already known climate prediction is far, far easier to predict than weather.

Every time you offer claims based "on one roll of the dice", you expose a great ignorance on the subject of climate science and clearly indicate to me you are certainly not in the climate science field nor a serious academic in Geography.

 

[BrianH]

That's about right. What makes it obvious you are a geographer and not in the field of climate science is that assumptions you make. A perfect example of your lack of knowledge on the issue is the tendency to post links about cold temperatures in Canada, or snow in wherever. Its almost as if you think that proves something. Well, it does not.

First off, you didn't believe that last year was a colder than most, so when I called you on it, you ignore it and dismiss it. I gave you proof that last year was a cold year, and you dismissed it as if I didn't prove you wrong. I also did not claim that I was proving that global warming did not exist...find that and I'll give you a dollar.

A big assumption you make is that you think it is hard or to difficult to predict climate as it is to predict weather. It is, in fact, extremely EASY to predict climate as opposed to weather - which is very difficult.

Second of all, did I make any statement at all about the prediction of the climate or weather? Find it and I'll give you props for it. Bet you won't. Any idiot knows that the climate can be predicted as well as a good portion of the weather. You're derailing from your OP.

To put it in laymen's terms. Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.

Dice (for this example, one dice only) is a good way to think about it. If you throw the dice ten times, which number is most often thrown? What is the mean of the scores?

Now if you start throwing the dice more, the closer the mean (average) gets to 3.5, because there is an equal opportunity of throwing any 6 of the numbers on the next throw. While it is very hard to predict what the next thrown number will be, it's incredibly easy to predict that the mean will still be 3.5.

Now, associate weather types rather than numbers with the sides of the dice. We'll mark the sides of our 'weather dice' in terms of cloud cover. We'll have 0 per cent cloud cover, 20 per cent, 40 per cent, 60 per cent, 80 per cent and 100 percent.

Third, you're using the law of Probability to derail from your "humans are rapidly increasing global warming. We all know the law of probably, especially in accordance with throwing dice. We all took a 5th grade math class. Get over yourself.

Is it possible for BrianH to predict what the weather will be on the next throw? Just like with the numbers on the dice, there is an equal chance of each amount of cloud cover. It is severly difficult for BrianH to predict what the weather will be on the next throw.

However, we know climate is the average of the weather over a long period of time.

Which brings Brian to the next question. Can Brian predict the climate? We know Brian probably could not make a weather forecast. But Brian could make a climate prediction. He could say 50 per cent cloud cover with confidence.

The climate is the long term average. A single throw of our 'weather sided' dice won't affect the climate very much. In the exact same way we can have a very hot summer one year and a cold one the next without the climate (the weather we expect) changing.

You've also failed to address the other planets in our solar system that are warming. You seem to enjoy cherry-picking information and posting non-sense as a response to them, while completely leaving out the things that baffle you or maybe don't make sense to you. (big suprise...)

You've obviously got more research than you have brains. Wait til you finish college and let your brain catch-up. Brian may not be able to predict the weather tonight, but Brian can predict a dismal failure by The Good Shephard to make and prove his case about humans severely impacting the globe with CO2 emissions. Get your sheep together before posting on another thread.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

First off, you didn't believe that last year was a colder than most, so when I called you on it, you ignore it and dismiss it. I gave you proof that last year was a cold year, and you dismissed it as if I didn't prove you wrong. I also did not claim that I was proving that global warming did not exist...find that and I'll give you a dollar.

The Earth was not colder than normal last year and you did not prove anything other than you did not read the article you linked the group to. You failed to comprehend the very same link you posted. I thought it was too obvious to call you on it.

Your own link never makes the claim that the Earth in 2007 was colder than most.

You are seeing words that do not exist.

 

[BrianH]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html
(check out what the main factor of the climate is)

http://rwor.org/a/030/hurricanes-climate-change-global-warming-2.htm


http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57949

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57895
(check out the conclusion for the melting of the ice at the end of the Ice Age)

http://nov55.com/gbwm.html
Check out what increased water vapor in the air does...

So in your eyes, what makes your sources more credible? Oh that's right...your own personal bias.

 

[BrianH]

I'm going to bed....do try and post something interesting for me to read in the morning. If that's not too much to ask.

Goodnight.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

So your eyes, what makes your sources more credible? Oh that's right...your own personal bias.

That is an unbelievably easy question to answer. A perfect example of this is the source you used "Oleg Sorokhtin" in a pathetic attempt to accuse me of bias.

I looked up Dr. Oleg Dr. Sorokhtin in an honest attempt to see what he has published in a peer-reviewed academic scientific journal lately, if ever. I have found nothing, and I suspect I never will.

Then I looked up his notions about solar activity. Once again, it is not backed up by any original published research on his part. In fact, solar activity claims have been flatly contradicted by several recent studies published in peer reviewed journals.

It's very simple really. You cite wacko's who do not publish studies in peer-reviewed academic journals. I base my conclusions from the world's leading climate science academics who currently publish peer-reviewed studies in scientific journals.

 

[Angel Heart]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDi_u0dcig[/ame]

 

[BrianH]

That is an unbelievably easy question to answer. A perfect example of this is the source you used "Oleg Sorokhtin" in a pathetic attempt to accuse me of bias.

I looked up Dr. Oleg Dr. Sorokhtin in an honest attempt to see what he has published in a peer-reviewed academic scientific journal lately, if ever. I have found nothing, and I suspect I never will.

Then I looked up his notions about solar activity. Once again, it is not backed up by any original published research on his part. In fact, solar activity claims have been flatly contradicted by several recent studies published in peer reviewed journals.

It's very simple really. You cite wacko's who do not publish studies in peer-reviewed academic journals. I base my conclusions from the world's leading climate science academics who currently publish peer-reviewed studies in scientific journals.

Ok turd stain, Let me list just few of my "wacko" resources.

-Habibullo Abdussamotov-head of Space Research at St. Petersburg Pulkobo Astronomical Observatory.
(Yeah, the Russians don't know anything about space... )
-Michael Mann- Penn State Meteorologist

-Eugenio Hackbart- Chief Meteorologist at MetSul Weather Center-Brazil

-Oleg Sorokhtin- Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

-Dr. Sami Solanki- Director of Max Planck Institute for the Solar System Research-Gottingen, Germany (Where Swiss and German scientists (not wackos) study the solar system.)

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131
I guess Nasa doesn't know what they're talking about either. Those wackos over at NASA don't have any credible research.

These are just a few sources that I've posted. It's funny how you cherry-picked that one man out of all of the sources I've posted. The main cause behind global warming is the Sun. Sure, their are other factors....but does it make you wonder, the fact that a 1% change in watervapor does more than the doubling of CO2 in the air? Water vapor is one hundred times as much of a greenhouse gas than CO2.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080114085128.htm
(Once again, NASA doesn't know what they're talking about...

 

[BrianH]

Ask yourself one question....why is it that top officials, that are harping on CO2 and global warming....are all lining thier pockets with money? Al Gore one the Nobel Peace Prize and then flew to Norway on his private jet, releasing "deadly CO2" into the atmosphere and rapidly speeding up our demise... Some conservative. He could have just caught a flight that was already going and saved some greenhouse gases.

Whether you like it, or agree with it. There are many bigger factors to global warming and climate change than CO2 being released from humans. Sun, orbit, plate tectonics, water currents, winds, pressure. etc...CO2 does play a part, and it is considered a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. But that's all it does, contributes. It is not severely speeding up the process.

 

[BrianH]

Just tell me when you've had enough....

Water holds 2/3 of heat trapped by greenhouse gasses (Water vapor is a green-house gas --in case you're wondering) So I ask you again...since study shows the CO2 did not cause the end of the Ice Age (link on previous posts), what did? Was it humans burning fossil fuels? Where the animals breathing too much? Did man accidently light the world on fire while discovering it? I know what happened, the damn invention of the automobile and the internal combustion engine...!!

All it takes for global warming to start, is a few good, hot years, to evaporate an abnormally high amount of water, the water vapor then traps heat from the sun.

Like I've said before, CO2 emissions are not a good substance to put into the air. I'm all for going green and getting rid of the crappy energy system we have, but CO2 is not the main cause of global warming, nor is it what is rapidly speeding up the process. Contributing to the inrease of global warming, probably, but by far not the cause or severity thereof.

You ever watch a video on the news, or read a newspaper article about global warming and they show some plant with a huge "smoke-stack"? And white smoke is just coming out of it like there's no tomorrow. 9 times out of 10, they're showing you the release of watervapor that is used to cool turbines and generators. If you had any knowledge about plants, you'd know that.


http://www.beckermn.org/info/sherco.html

Here's a link about smoke-stacks at a coal plant.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

These are just a few sources that I've posted. It's funny how you cherry-picked that one man out of all of the sources I've posted. The main cause behind global warming is the Sun. Sure, their are other factors....but does it make you wonder, the fact that a 1% change in watervapor does more than the doubling of CO2 in the air? Water vapor is one hundred times as much of a greenhouse gas than CO2.

You do not, I repeat, do not even read the links you post. The NASA article you provided does not comment or discredit anthropogenic global warming. In fact, you are so uninformed you do not even realize NASA has already endoresed the official consensus on global warming.

And once again, none of the names you have shared have written a peer-reviewed paper published in a scientific journal dealing with climate science in a long time or maybe even never.

You have a serious ignorance of climate science. Case in point, water vapour. Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.

Water vapour is a FEEDBACK.

Your ignorance is appalling. How you can sit there and claim to know climate science but not even recognize water vapour is a feedback and not a forcing is beyond comprehension.

If you were to read through the table of climate forcings in the IPCC report (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm) or at NASA's page about forcings in its GCM (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/), you won't find water vapour there at all. This is not because climate scientists are trying to hide the role of water vapour, rather it is because H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect, it is not a forcing agent. Simply put, any artificial perturbation in water vapour concentrations is too short lived to change the climate.

You are not a serious person. You do not bring serious discussion to the table.

The following claims have been endorsed by the climate science commmunity. a) Atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, b)Current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability and, c) Sea levels have risen over the last century.

If you want to be detailed about it, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change includes the following.

1. The climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;

2. The major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;

3. The rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;

4. If CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and

5. A climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

Where did I get this information from? Easy, go here. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

In the climate science community, it was called the TAR report. Endorsed by the UN but written - and this is important - by independent scientists from all over the globe.

There 's even more. The conlclusions of the TAR reports have been endorsed by the following organizations:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences


Wait...there's more...the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)


Please stop posting on this issue, I tire of exposing your lack of knowledge and schoolboy ignorance on the subject.

 

[Angel Heart]

If you have all the proof that's it's man's fault... Why don't you put in for the $150,000...


http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

 

[BrianH]

You do not, I repeat, do not even read the links you post. The NASA article you provided does not comment or discredit anthropogenic global warming. In fact, you are so uninformed you do not even realize NASA has already endoresed the official consensus on global warming.

You do not, I repeat, do not have rational brain in your skull. I never said the humans don't affect global warming, I said that humans did not effect global warming, nor are rapidly increasing the process more so that it would normall be warming. Why don't you stick to the "Who Supports a Draft Thread, you're not making quite an ass of yourself over there.

And once again, none of the names you have shared have written a peer-reviewed paper published in a scientific journal dealing with climate science in a long time or maybe even never.

None of the information you have posted, plus anything that's been expressed by your brain and fingers, have proven that man is causing or severely speeding up the global warming process. So if I except your BS, we're both in the same boat................that is until I push you out

You have a serious ignorance of climate science. Case in point, water vapour. Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.

You have serious ignorance.....period. One does not need to be an expert in Climate science to understand the globe has been warming, cooling, warming, cooling, warming long before mankind came into existance. You've never answered my quesitons about the Ice Age. What caused the melting of the Ice? What casued the melting of more ice from the ice age, then you've seen at the ice caps in your life?You've never answered, because you don't have the answer. I don't have the exact answer, but I can promise you that it wasn't man-made emissions or CO2

Water vapour is a FEEDBACK.

Your ignorance is appalling. How you can sit there and claim to know climate science but not even recognize water vapour is a feedback and not a forcing is beyond comprehension.

Your social skills are appalling.

If you were to read through the table of climate forcings in the IPCC report (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm) or at NASA's page about forcings in its GCM (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/), you won't find water vapour there at all. This is not because climate scientists are trying to hide the role of water vapour, rather it is because H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect, it is not a forcing agent. Simply put, any artificial perturbation in water vapour concentrations is too short lived to change the climate.

You are not a serious person. You do not bring serious discussion to the table.



The following claims have been endorsed by the climate science commmunity. a) Atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, b)Current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability and, c) Sea levels have risen over the last century.

If you want to be detailed about it, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change includes the following.

1. The climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;

2. The major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;

3. The rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
No shit? that proves that burning fossil fuels create CO2...WOW!

4. If CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and

5. A climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

Where did I get this information from? Easy, go here. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

In the climate science community, it was called the TAR report. Endorsed by the UN but written - and this is important - by independent scientists from all over the globe.

There 's even more. The conlclusions of the TAR reports have been endorsed by the following organizations:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences


Wait...there's more...the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)


Please stop posting on this issue, I tire of exposing your lack of knowledge and schoolboy ignorance on the subject.

wah wah wah wah wah..."Stop posting on my thread." Boodie frickin hoo.

Like I said, before. water vapor and the sun are the culprits of global warming. LIke I've also said a thousand times, CO2 is contributing, but it's not causing it and it's not severely speeding it up. It may be contributing and adding fuel to the fire, but it's not the primary cause of global warming.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0315humidity.html
--straight from the horses mouth...water vapor the key component, aided by other green-house gases, some human made. So like I said, CO2 assists, but is not causing. The main thing that speeds up global warming is water vapor.

You still fail to answer my questions about the ice age and the history of the Earth's climate change. What caused the Ice Age to begin ending? Was it human emmissions of CO2 or other greenhouse gases? NO. Was the Earth always a ball of Ice, No. So the earth had never ever ever changed climate rapidly?? What brought on the Ice Age? That was a pretty rapid change in climate. It was also a pretty rapid change out of the Ice Age. Considering the most recent Ice Age ended about 11,000 years ago. Some would even argue that the ice caps we see today are remanence of the ice age. OH, and by the way, in order for their to be ice at the poles, there had to be water their first. So if we are messing it up, we're basically returning it back to the way it was.

If you want to go with the whole CO2 "THEORY'. Then you could assume that because there was less CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth did not hold heat and became a ball of ice, killing much of the wildlife on earth. So if humans are keeping the earth from returning into a ball of ice, because of their CO2 emissions, we're actually doing a good thing.

 

[AllieBaba]

Probably not actually. He could try, but I doubt the case would go anywhere. By the way...where again is Republican outrage over this frivolous lawsuit? He doesn't even expect to win...he is just using the courtrooms as a surrogate debating forum.



Yes...lets start suing people because we think they lied. Free speech? Whats that?

Free speech only goes as far as we can take it without trespassing upon the rights of others, or seeking to do harm to others.

"Fraud" is not an example of free speech, or it wouldn't be a crime.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Like I said, before. water vapor... culprits of global warming.

The main thing that speeds up global warming is water vapor.



:

You've been told twice already. Water vapour is a feedback and not a forcing. There is no "disagreeing." This is a fact, much like one plus one equals two. This is not a political conversation, however hard you try to make it into one. You have an opinion and it is an ignorant one, it is also wrong and emblematic of a person with no serious knowledge of the issue.

As for your links, once again you failed to understand them. You are either a twit who cannot comprehend what he is reading, or you are purposefully being deceptive. I'll choose the latter option since it has become a pattern by you to submit links that do not solidify, strengthen much less discredit current climate science claims.

I'm not going to discuss any further the issues of climate science with someone who does not know the difference between a feedback and a forcing.

And to claim I have not provided any evidence - even though I have provided a list of the credible scientific organizations agreeing with the consensus of the TAR report - is an outright lie.

I do not think you had any knowledge of the TAR report - a study every credible climate scientist has knowledge of - before I mentioned it.

I do not, and will not waste my time trading words with a liar.

 

[BrianH]

You've been told twice already. Water vapour is a feedback and not a forcing. There is no "disagreeing." This is a fact, much like one plus one equals two. This is not a political conversation, however hard you try to make it into one. You have an opinion and it is an ignorant one, it is also wrong and emblematic of a person with no serious knowledge of the issue.

As for your links, once again you failed to understand them. You are either a twit who cannot comprehend what he is reading, or you are purposefully being deceptive. I'll choose the latter option since it has become a pattern by you to submit links that do not solidify, strengthen much less discredit current climate science claims.

I'm not going to discuss any further the issues of climate science with someone who does not know the difference between a feedback and a forcing.

And to claim I have not provided any evidence - even though I have provided a list of the credible scientific organizations agreeing with the consensus of the TAR report - is an outright lie.

I do not think you had any knowledge of the TAR report - a study every credible climate scientist has knowledge of - before I mentioned it.

I do not, and will not waste my time trading words with a liar.

First off, calling me a liar would be based on the premise that you are telling the truth. And considering that you cannot prove without a reasonable doubt that you are right, who knows what the truth is. I know one thing that is fact....the climate of earth had been changing for millions of years without the assistance of man made emissions.


TAR was a report issued in 2001 in Geneva numnuts. It was issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Don't flatter yourself.

Notice that it's the Intergovernmental Panel on "CLIMATE CHANGE." I don't see the "Intergovernmental Panel on Human Induced Climate Change.

The fact is, the climate is changing and is going to change whether we want it to or not, and at whatever rate it wants to. If you want to waste your time studying a fallacy instead of being educated by me on this forum, be my guest. If you want to spend the rest of your days "acting" smarter than everyone else, you go right ahead.

I really enjoy how you've deflected the whole Ice Age issue. Tell me, what melted all of the ice? What caused it? If water was here first, that would mean that there, originally, was no ice. What caused the original heating that began melting the ice at the end of the Ice Age.
We are contributing, but we are not the sole factors of the climate. It will change on it's own. And if for a second, I believed that humans were causing or speeding up global warming, I would sooner say that our emissions is more likely to bring on an miniature Ice Age than cause the Earth to explode in a ball of fire.

Humans cannot control this climate any more than they can control the weather....considering the climate is an accumulation of weather patterns in a region over a long period of time.

Not only am I more intelligent than you, You are significantly dumber than I.
If you're having such a problem, feel free to quit posting. Though I'm rather enjoying your stupidity and "colleg-boy/nerd" attitude.

 

[BrianH]

Here's the truth behind your madness.

Your Hero

 

[BrianH]

Would Gore have any better at speaking?

"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur."
-- Vice President Al Gore, 9/22/97

""The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century."
-- Vice President Al Gore, 9/15/95

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."
-- Vice President Al Gore
Shows how much your hero actually knows about the environment

"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change."
-- Vice President Al Gore, 5/22/98

"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."
-- Vice President Al Gore

"We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world."
-- Vice President Al Gore, 9/21/97

"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."
-- Vice President Al Gore to Sam Donaldson, 8/17/93

Your hero doing what he does best, talking nonsense.

 

[BrianH]

Anyway, back to the topic. You can't prove it. You can only assume.

 

[AllieBaba]

Hehehehe...those are great!