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

[BruceWayne]

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

There are lots of things we can't prove, but that doesn't mean we should ignore or dismiss them.

 

[BrianH]

There are lots of things we can't prove, but that doesn't mean we should ignore or dismiss them.

I haven't dismissed anything. I haven't dismissed the fact that the globe is warming. I haven't dismissed the fact that CO2 plays a part. But since it cannot be proven that CO2 is the main cause of global warming (Hence my example of the Ice Age ending--what melted it?--not CO2 emissions) I will not believe it. There are too many other factors in this universe that dictate how this globe acts. All of the other planets in our solar system including Pluto ( I know, not a planet anymore) are warming. CO2 has become "the devil" to some people. I have no problem with "going green" or cleaning up emissions from humans, but the earth is going to do what the earth is going to do. We can't stop climate change anymore than we can plug up all of our springs and stop rivers from flowing. Haven't dismissed CO2 as a contributing source, but it's not the cause. Water vapor may not be a forcing greenhouse gas, but it holds more heat/radiation from the sun's UV rays than any other greenhouse gas.

 

[TopGunna]

I haven't dismissed anything. I haven't dismissed the fact that the globe is warming. I haven't dismissed the fact that CO2 plays a part. But since it cannot be proven that CO2 is the main cause of global warming (Hence my example of the Ice Age ending--what melted it?--not CO2 emissions) I will not believe it. There are too many other factors in this universe that dictate how this globe acts. All of the other planets in our solar system including Pluto ( I know, not a planet anymore) are warming. CO2 has become "the devil" to some people. I have no problem with "going green" or cleaning up emissions from humans, but the earth is going to do what the earth is going to do. We can't stop climate change anymore than we can plug up all of our springs and stop rivers from flowing. Haven't dismissed CO2 as a contributing source, but it's not the cause. Water vapor may not be a forcing greenhouse gas, but it holds more heat/radiation from the sun's UV rays than any other greenhouse gas.

Exactly. CO2 by itself cannot cause runaway warming - in fact both sides of the climate debate agree that total potential warming from infinite CO2 concentrations is around 1.6C. There is a diminishing return relationship between increased CO2 concentrations and temperature increase, and it actually asymptotes around 1.6C.

All the catastrophic scenarios of runaway warming theory rely heavily on positive feedbacks. Namely, that CO2 increasing temperatures slightly will trigger water evaporation and ice melting that will amplify the warming effect. Of course, negative feedbacks will be triggered as well - increased cloud cover, plant growth, etc.

So which of these effects dominates the other? Well, there is NO (zippy, zilch) empirical evidence to go from. But AGW alarmists argue that the net effect is a large net POSITIVE feedback. That's a giant leap of faith - again, there is NO PROOF. That doesn't sound like good science to me.

In what we CAN prove, the physical world is actually dominated by NEGATIVE feedbacks! Which makes a lot of sense, because systems dominated by positive feedbacks are extremely unstable and not sustainable over time. However, a system kept in balance by negative feedbacks can fluctuate (into ice ages, or warm periods, for example). You know, like when people migrated over the Bering Strait, or when the Vikings landed on an island they called Greenland. The negative feedbacks keep temperatures in that natural range of variation.

So why believe in a net positive feedback effect with absolutely no proof, and based on very questionable assumptions? AGW theory is closer to a religion than it is to science.

 

[BrianH]

Exactly. CO2 by itself cannot cause runaway warming - in fact both sides of the climate debate agree that total potential warming from infinite CO2 concentrations is around 1.6C. There is a diminishing return relationship between increased CO2 concentrations and temperature increase, and it actually asymptotes around 1.6C.

All the catastrophic scenarios of runaway warming theory rely heavily on positive feedbacks. Namely, that CO2 increasing temperatures slightly will trigger water evaporation and ice melting that will amplify the warming effect. Of course, negative feedbacks will be triggered as well - increased cloud cover, plant growth, etc.

So which of these effects dominates the other? Well, there is NO (zippy, zilch) empirical evidence to go from. But AGW alarmists argue that the net effect is a large net POSITIVE feedback. That's a giant leap of faith - again, there is NO PROOF. That doesn't sound like good science to me.

In what we CAN prove, the physical world is actually dominated by NEGATIVE feedbacks! Which makes a lot of sense, because systems dominated by positive feedbacks are extremely unstable and not sustainable over time. However, a system kept in balance by negative feedbacks can fluctuate (into ice ages, or warm periods, for example). You know, like when people migrated over the Bering Strait, or when the Vikings landed on an island they called Greenland. The negative feedbacks keep temperatures in that natural range of variation.

So why believe in a net positive feedback effect with absolutely no proof, and based on very questionable assumptions? AGW theory is closer to a religion than it is to science.

Nicely put.

I believe that the globe is warming at this particular point in time, and that CO2 does effect it to a degree. But trying to convince Galileo (The Good Shephard) that CO2 is not the sole force in climate change is like trying to eat a turd flavored popsicle---hard to do and it stinks while your doing it.

You should PM TGS your post, cause I don't think he's posting here anymore. I made him mad I guess, and he called me a liar.

 

[cbi0090]

I don't think the rub is whether the earth is warming up or not. It's obvious, based on a lot of scientific evidence, that it is and that it "may" be accelerating. Unfortunately, we don't really have a lot of data to fall back on except geological evidence. It shows that have gone through several cycles of warming and cooling and that it was the separation of the two main oceans that seem to be the primary cause. But, as with any natural process, rate of change generally do increase with time. Practically nothing behaves in a straight line.
So there is evidence that we are warming and that the rate of that change may be accelerating, but we can't really pin that rate increase on man as opposed to nature.
It makes some sense that our activities would have some effect and I don't think it is entirely wrong to theorize this possibility and make attempts to get to the bottom of it quickly. But what has happened is that the issue has been removed from hands of those scientists and researchers who would normally have looked at the issue without prejudice. Instead, every politician and nut looking for attention, money or both have jumped on this bandwagon and are riding it for all it's worth making unfounded claims that they know will sell. Of course, the media and it's "stars" are more than happy to jump on to anything that sounds like the end of the world because that always sells well.
If we could possibly divert our attention away long enough for the carpet baggers and media hounds to lose interest, maybe some serious science could get done and we could really find out what is happening.

 

[Angel Heart]

I don't think we are any more. In fact this last year was amazingly cold.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/02/11/minnesota.cold.ap/index.html

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/

How about their predictions of hurricanes getting worse. And they have yet to say that. I personally thing they are making it up as they go along.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't think we are any more. In fact this last year was amazingly cold.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/02/11/minnesota.cold.ap/index.html

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/

How about their predictions of hurricanes getting worse. And they have yet to say that. I personally thing they are making it up as they go along.

There is evidence the warming stopped around 1998. Every supposed warming since then as not been base numbers but " adjusted" temperatures. When one demands the base numbers they find no warming in fact occurred. The problem is not all points that measure the temp will release the base figures. I wonder why?

Nor will the powers that be explain how they came up with their "adjusted" temperatures.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

So there is evidence that we are warming and that the rate of that change may be accelerating, but we can't really pin that rate increase on man as opposed to nature.

The last sentence of the first statement is absolutely false. Climate scientists do have a culprit and - through overwhelming evidence - have firmly proven their claims. One, the earth is warming, two the cause is humans, three the reason is human emissions.

Tremendous amounts of evidence appearing in over 2000 lines of independent peer-reviewed studies report these conclusions.

 

[Angel Heart]

Then why hasn't anyone clamed the $150,000 being offered up to prove it?

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Exactly. CO2 by itself cannot cause runaway warming - in fact both sides of the climate debate


So why believe in a net positive feedback effect with absolutely no proof, and based on very questionable assumptions? AGW theory is closer to a religion than it is to science.

Another contrarian enters the arena. I have some issues with your post. Especially the above.

Here's a clue. There is no "both sides" of the debate because there is only one side. There exists a consensus among working climate scientists.

Every major institute that deals with climate-related science is saying anthropogenic global warming is here and real and dangerous, even though they will not remove the "very likely" and "strongly indicated" qualifiers. The translation of what the science is saying into the language of the public is this: Global warming is definitely happening and it is definitely because of human activities and it will definitely continue as long as CO2 keeps rising in the atmosphere.

The rest of the issue -- how high will the temperature go, how fast will it get there, and how bad will this be -- is much less certain.

You haven't the foggiest of the inner workings of the climate science community. Had you done your homework, you would have realized no peer-reviewed studies found in academic journals argue a different position on anthropogenic global warming.

There are no "both sides" of the debate. It exists only in your head, nowhere else.

In fact, a study studying the studies was done with 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change".

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Then why hasn't anyone clamed the $150,000 being offered up to prove it?

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

Very easy question to answer. Because the author of the website, Steven Milloy, is an established liar.

Never mind his past as a paid advocate of the Tobacco lobby. Never mind he once claimed smoking does not cancer or that DDT was safe for schoolchildren and public areas. He's showing you the money and that must be good, right?

Milloy has been a liar all his life.

So, get real. Do yourself a favour and research the sources you post. I take it as a reflection of one's character.

 

[trobinett]

I find it curious, that the Global warming crowd do little to subtract from this threatening event.

They get on Jets to fly to these meetings, that they seem to have all around the world.

They are carried from the airports in cars.

Ever stop to think what they do personally? My common sense meter tells me they do very little, and in fact their carbon foot print is probably about the same size as Al Gore's, enormous.

I've grown weary of those that preach the old, "do as I say, don't do as I do" line.

 

[BrianH]

He's back!!! I knew you couldn't stay gone snuckems.

You know, you gripe and complain about others not bringing what you would call "serious" discussion to the table. Yet you constantly belittle posters by saying they are misinformed, unintelligent, that they have no intelligence or knowledge of the subject. It's one thing joking around and and making fun, but you have a very condescending attitude toward anyone who doesn't agree with you. You want to post pictures of an ape and call me one, that would be fine, but you need to learn to have a discussion with people without sounding like the dumbest smart person in the world.

We've asked you to prove that CO2 is the culprit behind global warming, and you respond by talking about how other (scientists) think it is because of certain studies. Then you dismiss the scientists that others bring up because you simply disagree with them and are biased.

Now as far as global warming is concerned....Humans are causing the earth to warm (in your opinion). Since you've avoided this question every time....Did humans (emissions) cause the earth to warm at the end of the Ice Age? Did he lack of human (emissions) cause the Ice Age to begin? Why is every planet in the solar system warming also, including Pluto?
You have failed to address these questions (even though you claim to have extensive knowledge of the subject).

 

[BrianH]

I find it curious, that the Global warming crowd do little to subtract from this threatening event.

They get on Jets to fly to these meetings, that they seem to have all around the world.

They are carried from the airports in cars.

Ever stop to think what they do personally? My common sense meter tells me they do very little, and in fact their carbon foot print is probably about the same size as Al Gore's, enormous.

I've grown weary of those that preach the old, "do as I say, don't do as I do" line.

Yeah, I agree 100%. Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize, hops in his private jet to Norway to pick accept it. What a conservationist... Money is driving this car and the politicians have the money to steer the "study" which ever way they want.

 

[BrianH]

Very easy question to answer. Because the author of the website, Steven Milloy, is an established liar.

Never mind his past as a paid advocate of the Tobacco lobby. Never mind he once claimed smoking does not cancer or that DDT was safe for schoolchildren and public areas. He's showing you the money and that must be good, right?

Milloy has been a liar all his life.

So, get real. Do yourself a favour and research the sources you post. I take it as a reflection of one's character.

What does it matter if this guy is a liar? He's not trying to disprove global warming. He's offering for others to prove that it is caused by humans. It has nothing to do with whether he is liar or not. The fact that you can't prove it is caused by humans, but claim it is really is a reflection of your character.

 

[BrianH]

Another contrarian enters the arena. I have some issues with your post. Especially the above.

Here's a clue. There is no "both sides" of the debate because there is only one side. There exists a consensus among working climate scientists.

Are you kidding? There's two sides in this thread, this thread is about one side of the argument suing the other side. You should really research your statements before you post.

Every major institute that deals with climate-related science is saying anthropogenic global warming is here and real and dangerous, even though they will not remove the "very likely" and "strongly indicated" qualifiers. The translation of what the science is saying into the language of the public is this: Global warming is definitely happening and it is definitely because of human activities and it will definitely continue as long as CO2 keeps rising in the atmosphere.

The rest of the issue -- how high will the temperature go, how fast will it get there, and how bad will this be -- is much less certain.

You haven't the foggiest of the inner workings of the climate science community. Had you done your homework, you would have realized no peer-reviewed studies found in academic journals argue a different position on anthropogenic global warming.

No peer-reviewd studies have yet to prove your assumption.

There are no "both sides" of the debate. It exists only in your head, nowhere else.
Once again, very idiotic of you to assume this, the thread is about a chief meteorologist/scientist suing Gore for his fallacy...looks a bit two sided to me. Of course, you're biased and fail to recognize others' POV

In fact, a study studying the studies was done with 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change".

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

That's because none of the papers were about natural climate change smartness. They were about human induced global warming. When you right a research paper on human induced global warming, you don't start explaining all of the aspects of natural climate change and try to convince people that it's natural. That's like going to Burger King and ordering a Big Mac.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

That's because none of the papers were about natural climate change smartness. They were about human induced global warming. When you right a research paper on human induced global warming, you don't start explaining all of the aspects of natural climate change and try to convince people that it's natural. That's like going to Burger King and ordering a Big Mac.

Wrong as usual.

No papers - I repeat - no peer-reviewed papers published in scientific academic journals arguing against Anthropogenic global warming exist. I challenge you at least post one (not that one would matter or discredit over 2000 lines of evidence.)

What you are is an idealogue offering political theories based on fraudulent science conducted by paid scientists on the behalf of a non-academic lobby. What you cannot do is offer even one peer-reviewed study supporting your side of the debate.

You cannot offer such a paper, because such a paper does not exist except in the minds of the contrarians.

And your claim that no "No peer-reviewed studies have yet to prove your assumption, " is yet another silly lie. Over 2000 lines of independent evidence support anthropogenic global warming. In its most recent assessment, the IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements.

You, are a liar and a bad one at that. The next time you try to claim no peer-reviewed studies arguing the consensus concerning anthropogenic global warming exist, make sure you actually realize there exists over 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. The papers are listed in the ISI database. Check the database. It is in the public record for all to see.

You're lying is getting absurd. You have no knowledge. No credentials and no experience.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

We've asked you to prove that CO2 is the culprit behind global warming, and you respond by talking about how other (scientists) think it is because of certain studies. Then you dismiss the scientists that others bring up because you simply disagree with them and are biased.

Now as far as global warming is concerned....Humans are causing the earth to warm (in your opinion). Since you've avoided this question every time....Did humans (emissions) cause the earth to warm at the end of the Ice Age? Did he lack of human (emissions) cause the Ice Age to begin? Why is every planet in the solar system warming also, including Pluto?
You have failed to address these questions (even though you claim to have extensive knowledge of the subject).

You are a waste of time. And I will not do homework for a lying internet personality who says he will not stray from his beliefs no matter the overwhelming evidence.

 

[BrianH]

Wrong as usual.

No papers - I repeat - no peer-reviewed papers published in scientific academic journals arguing against Anthropogenic global warming exist. I challenge you at least post one (not that one would matter or discredit over 2000 lines of evidence.)

What you are is an idealogue offering political theories based on fraudulent science conducted by paid scientists on the behalf of a non-academic lobby. What you cannot do is offer even one peer-reviewed study supporting your side of the debate.

You cannot offer such a paper, because such a paper does not exist except in the minds of the contrarians.

And your claim that no "No peer-reviewed studies have yet to prove your assumption, " is yet another silly lie. Over 2000 lines of independent evidence support anthropogenic global warming. In its most recent assessment, the IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements.

You, are a liar and a bad one at that. The next time you try to claim no peer-reviewed studies arguing the consensus concerning anthropogenic global warming exist, make sure you actually realize there exists over 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. The papers are listed in the ISI database. Check the database. It is in the public record for all to see.

You're lying is getting absurd. You have no knowledge. No credentials and no experience.

You are still not providing anything that hasn't been said before while still dismission the Ice Age FACT. Let me quote a statement you embolded.

"the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities"

No one here is claiming that humans do not affect the globe or global warming. You should read the posts before going off on a biased rant of which you have no credentials of either. You're a 19 year-old who's in love with Al Gore and his fallacy.

Second quote of yours:

"What you are is an idealogue offering political theories based on fraudulent science conducted by paid scientists on the behalf of a non-academic lobby"

Are you frickin kidding me. Politicians are paying scientists to advocate global warming numnuts...they're not going to make any money of of paying science to disprove global warming. You're fresh...and it makes me laugh.

Since you're such a peer-reviewed study nut...here are just a few that go the other way. Dude, you make it too easy. And make yourself look like more of a liar than I will ever be. Liar Liar pants on fire.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d87f58c3-be16-4959-88e2-906b7c291fd6

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/200...ntific-studies-defy-global-warming-consensus/

 

[BrianH]

Excerpt from one peer-reviewed scientific study-
"Brussels: CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. "But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it", climate scientist Luc Debontridder said. "Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it." said Debontridder. "Every change in weather conditions is blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to the 'North-Atlantic Oscillation'. And this has absolutely nothing to do with CO2," he added. (LINK)

Another Excerpt from a differetn PRSJ
The study found that times of high solar activity are on average 0.2 degrees C warmer than times of low solar activity, and that there is a polar amplification of the warming. This result is the first to document a statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the solar cycle, the authors note. Authors: Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung: Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A. Source: Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) paper 10.1029/2007GL030207, 2007


Another:
At least 80 percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems. Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade. Without that knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of certainty," Spencer added. The paper was co-authored by University of Alabama Huntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA

Another:
“According to the findings reviewed in this paper, the variable output of the sun, the sun’s gravitational relationship between the earth (and the moon) and earth’s variable orbital relationship with the sun, regulate the earth’s climate. The processes by which the sun affects the earth show periodicities on many time scales; each process is stochastic and immensely complex.

Another
A July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics. Excerpt: “There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm.”

Another:
Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan, and Sun Xian’s 2007 study, published in the peer-reviewed Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, noted that CO2’s impact on warming may be “excessively exaggerated.” Excerpt: “The global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect. The best example is temperature obviously cooling however atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to 1970s. Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change,” the two scientists concluded.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.
There are just as many that refute global warming that advocate it. This proves that your frickin assertion that there is not "both" sides to the argument. This also disproves your notion that there are no peer-reviewed studies on how CO2 his not rapidly changing the earth's environment. Who's turning out to be the liar?