One More Tube of Sunscreen, Then Pass the Sweaters

[actsnoblemartin]

hahaha

It should come as no surprise, after all he is their King. all hail King Liberal Al Bore

 

[Angel Heart]

Al Gore is no better than a snake oil sales man.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

he needs to be important, and I dont see any critical analysis of his work. Everyone just bows down like a hungry puppy, and he has the dog treat.

Al Gore is no better than a snake oil sales man.

 

[Angel Heart]

I've seen some but most of it hasn't been by the MSM. Do a Google for "global warming hoax" under videos. There's a lot of interesting counter arguments.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Thank You Ms Angel Heart

I've seen some but most of it hasn't been by the MSM. Do a Google for "global warming hoax" under videos. There's a lot of interesting counter arguments.

 

[Angel Heart]

This photo was used to prove Global Warming (Al used it in An Inconvenient Truth):

Here's the facts behind that photo:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKAC4kfHruQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKAC4kfHruQ[/ame]

 

[Angel Heart]

This guy explains it great:

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

 

[red states rule]

Former IPCC Member Slams UN Scientists' Lack of Geologic Knowledge
Posted by Noel Sheppard on July 9, 2007 - 13:53.
With each passing day, more and more current and former members of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are stepping out of the shadows to suggest that this group’s alarmist conclusions concerning global warming are more based in myth than science.

Another member of this growing list of skeptics is Tom V. Segalstad who was an Expert Reviewer for the IPCC’s third assessment report.

As published in Canada’s National Post Saturday, conveniently coincident with Al Gore’s Live Earth concerts (emphasis added throughout):


We are doomed, say climate change scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body that is organizing most of the climate change research occurring in the world today. Carbon dioxide from man-made sources rises to the atmosphere and then stays there for 50, 100, or even 200 years. This unprecedented buildup of CO2 then traps heat that would otherwise escape our atmosphere, threatening us all.

“This is nonsense," says Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the same IPCC. He laments the paucity of geologic knowledge among IPCC scientists -- a knowledge that is central to understanding climate change, in his view, since geologic processes ultimately determine the level of atmospheric CO2.

"The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes," he says. "Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible

for the complete article
http://newsbusters.org/node/13971

 

[SolarEnergy1]

Former IPCC Member Slams UN Scientists' Lack of Geologic Knowledge
Posted by Noel Sheppard on July 9, 2007 - 13:53.
With each passing day, more and more current and former members of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are stepping out of the shadows to suggest that this group’s alarmist conclusions concerning global warming are more based in myth than science.

Another member of this growing list of skeptics is Tom V. Segalstad who was an Expert Reviewer for the IPCC’s third assessment report.

As published in Canada’s National Post Saturday, conveniently coincident with Al Gore’s Live Earth concerts (emphasis added throughout):


We are doomed, say climate change scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body that is organizing most of the climate change research occurring in the world today. Carbon dioxide from man-made sources rises to the atmosphere and then stays there for 50, 100, or even 200 years. This unprecedented buildup of CO2 then traps heat that would otherwise escape our atmosphere, threatening us all.

“This is nonsense," says Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the same IPCC. He laments the paucity of geologic knowledge among IPCC scientists -- a knowledge that is central to understanding climate change, in his view, since geologic processes ultimately determine the level of atmospheric CO2.

"The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes," he says. "Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible

for the complete article
http://newsbusters.org/node/13971

It doesnt really matter because in the end the Dark Energy will rip us apart. Also known as the Big Rip Theory
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big_rip_030306.html

 

[red states rule]

Former Weather Channel Bigwig Debunks IPCC and Global Warming Hysteria
Posted by Noel Sheppard on July 10, 2007 - 14:50.
Joseph D’Aleo is likely not a household name.

However his bona fides when it comes to meteorology are such that when he suggests that “a [small] cadre of agenda-driven scientists and statesmen” inside the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provided a “more alarmist interpretation” of the facts concerning manmade global warming, and “the media took the most extreme of the messages to hype them further,” people should pay heed.

With that in mind, this former Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel, and current Executive Director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, published an article at Energy Tribune Monday that should be required reading for all actually interested in the facts surrounding this controversial subject (emphasis added throughout):

Despite the 90 percent certainty that man is behind recent global warming trends, the word “uncertainty” appears 494 times in the recent “Summary for Policymakers,” produced by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Though the actual research scientists generally did a commendable job, the more alarmist interpretation was provided by a smaller cadre of agenda-driven scientists and statesmen. Then the media took the most extreme of the messages to hype them further.

Much of his article was highly technical in nature, but should be largely understandable for the layman willing to put in a little time:

The report’s final summaries had several failings. First, it blindly accepts a 20th-century carbon dioxide rise of 36 percent, when direct measurements(1) suggest the change is closer to 15 percent. Their models assume an annual increase of 1 percent, although over the last 50 years the long-term annual average consistently has been less than half that, 0.43 percent. Their models treat the oceans as distilled water when in reality they are an infinite buffer for atmospheric CO2. Burning all the earth’s fossil fuels would amount to no more than a 20 percent increase. It could never double(2). In any event, ice cores tell us carbon dioxide lags, not leads, the temperatures by as much as 800 years.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13998

 

[bobn]

The article gets many facts wrong and doesn't seem to grasp the science underlying various conclusions.

Some examples:

"First, it blindly accepts a 20th-century carbon dioxide rise of 36 percent, when direct measurements(1) suggest the change is closer to 15 percent"

It's not "blindly accepted", the weight of evidence strongly shows that. Reliable direct measurements only go back so far - about 1960. Those direct measurements show a rise year on year with over 20% increase since they began (not 15% as claimed). Before that there's ice cores which show that co2 was rising before that too (hardly suprising - it would be a bit of a coincidence for co2 to start a significant year on year rise the very year reliable direct measurements began and not a moment earlier)

"Burning all the earth’s fossil fuels would amount to no more than a 20 percent increase. It could never double"

This claim is grossly incorrect. There's more than enough carbon locked in oil and coal reserves to double or even triple atmospheric co2. Coal reserves for example at the current consumption rate would last over 200 years.

The article keeps mentioning "dozens of peer reviewed" papers without citing them. Some of the "problems" the article mentions are imagined, being either long settled issues in the science or there is a lot more certainty on them than the article admits to.

Their claims about the sun are nonsense too. They misrepresent the work done on the issue and overhype the cosmic ray connection which hasn't been causually demonstrated yet, let alone quantified - and the recent trend in cosmic rays goes in the wrong direction - ie according to that theory it should have been getting colder recently.

 

[red states rule]

BBC Report on Sun and Climate Change Contradicts Its Own 2004 Story
Posted by Noel Sheppard on July 12, 2007 - 17:34.
On Thursday, Jules Crittenden wondered if American media are lazy, stupid or willfully ignorant with how they’ve been reporting events in Iraq.

Given the BBC’s recent piece concerning the relationship between the sun and climate change which hysterically ignored an article it published almost three years ago with a completely diametric view, one might ask the same question of that British television network.

To set this up, as NewsBusters reported Thursday, the BBC.com published a piece concerning Mike Lockwood’s paper discrediting a connection between the sun’s activities and global warming in the past 22 years.

However, on July 6, 2004, BBC.com published an article entitled “Sunspots Reaching 1000-year High” (h/t Global Warming Hysteria):

for the complete article

http://newsbusters.org/node/14056