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

[BrianH]

I think you're confused as to the claims of the credible scientific community. They have never - ever - argued the Earth has not warmed before. Please be clear on that.

The claim is that the the rate of warming is unprecented due to the rapid increase in CO2 from human emissions.

Yeah I know...but where's the proof that CO2 is increasingly warming the earth? It's just speculation, they have no proof. CO2 is naturally in the environment. Every human, mammal on earth releases CO2 when they exhale....it's natural. They have not shown proof that it is CO2 that's causing it.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Yeah I know...but where's the proof that CO2 is increasingly warming the earth? It's just speculation, they have no proof. CO2 is naturally in the environment. Every human, mammal on earth releases CO2 when they exhale....it's natural. They have not shown proof that it is CO2 that's causing it.

No it is not speculation, not even close sir. The conclusions are derived from from over 2000 lines of independent evidence found in peer-reviewed scientific academic journals.

I have an intimate knowledge of this issue. I am up for providing the resources or explaining to you as best as I can any questions you may have regarding Co2 emissions/global warming and the empirical evidence to back it up.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

First claim: The Earth is warming: "How do we know the earth is warming?"

The answer is because Global warming is a conclusion based on observations of many global indicators.

The most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:

NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis(http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/), and CRU direct surface temperature analysis(http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/).

Both trends are definitely and significantly up.

In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the claim that the earth is currently undergoing. The following empirical observations lead to the same conclusion - that the earth is warming: Satellite data, radiosondes, borehole analysis, glacial melt observations, sea ice melt, sea level rise, proxy reconstructions and permafrost melt.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Yeah I know...but where's the proof that CO2 is increasingly warming the earth? It's just speculation, they have no proof. CO2 is naturally in the environment. Every human, mammal on earth releases CO2 when they exhale....it's natural. They have not shown proof that it is CO2 that's causing it.

Yes, there has been "proof."

First, remember that there is no "proof" in science -- that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in.

In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical. It is supported by sophisticated, refined global climate models that can successfully reproduce the climate's behavior over the last century.

Given the lack of any extra planet Earths and a few really large time machines, it is simply impossible to do any better than this.


Here's a question directed to all the skeptics...what observations or evidence would you consider "proof" that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels?

 

[BrianH]

Yes, there has been "proof."

First, remember that there is no "proof" in science -- that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in.

In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical. It is supported by sophisticated, refined global climate models that can successfully reproduce the climate's behavior over the last century.

Given the lack of any extra planet Earths and a few really large time machines, it is simply impossible to do any better than this.


Here's a question directed to all the skeptics...what observations or evidence would you consider "proof" that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels?

THat's my problem with global warming....because it cannot be proven...I cannot buy it. I believe the globe is warming...but since scintists have not tracked the warming of the earth until recently, how are they sure that the globe didn't once warm at a rapid race like today?? THey don't have records that can even indicate the rate of warming in the old days or in prehistory. This is why I'm skeptical...sure, the globe is warming, and I'm sure humans are contributing to it, but I cannot be convinced that we have sped it up.

 

[Angel Heart]

Global temperatures 'to decrease'

By Roger Harrabin
BBC News environment analyst

Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.

The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

More...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7329799.stm

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

THat's my problem with global warming....because it cannot be proven...I cannot buy it. I believe the globe is warming...but since scintists have not tracked the warming of the earth until recently, how are they sure that the globe didn't once warm at a rapid race like today?? THey don't have records that can even indicate the rate of warming in the old days or in prehistory. This is why I'm skeptical...sure, the globe is warming, and I'm sure humans are contributing to it, but I cannot be convinced that we have sped it up.

I'm not going to let you off the hook. I asked a very serious question. I would appreciate you answer it. Here is it again...

What observations or evidence would you consider "proof" that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels?

 

[BrianH]

I'm not going to let you off the hook. I asked a very serious question. I would appreciate you answer it. Here is it again...

What observations or evidence would you consider "proof" that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels?

I don't think there's any amount of proof that I could see, that would PROVE to me, that humans have rapidly increased global warming....

because nothing is FACT...

The FACT that scientist were not around or kept record of the rate of heating or cooling the earth did before scientists were around keeps me from accepting it.

I have questions that stem from this belief...

What caused the earth to come out of the Ice Age? (did humans burning fossil fuels melt all of the ice?
What caused the Ice Age?
How come I live 20 miles inland from the ocean, and my father-in-law digs up oyster-shells in the middle of a field? (Maybe because it was once under water?).
Were the ice caps here before the Ice Age of after? (Cause if they weren't, then maybe there were none before the Ice Age.)
Maybe the earth did not have Ice on it at all before the beginng of the Ice Age... Scientists claim that in the beginings of earth (before life), that the earth was one GIANT BALL OF ICE....what melted that?

If the ICE AGE (climate change) can kill the dinosaurs, it can kill us too.


I've lost faith in the "humans rapidly speeding up global warming." IT's a theory.

Every year we hear..."Hurricane season is going to be bad because of global warming...." I call BS.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html
http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/REMARKS+OF+JOHN+COLEMAN+FINAL6c.pdf

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

I don't think there's any amount of proof that I could see, that would PROVE to me, that humans have rapidly increased global warming....

Why you would even assume your claim that "...scientists were not around or kept record of the rate of heating or cooling the earth," would have any bearing on the validity and reliability of the mountains of evidence that exist ( which include ice core samples, NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis, CRU direct surface temperature analysis, Satellite Data,Radiosondes, Sea level rise, Borehole analysis,Proxy Reconstructions,Glacial melt observations, Sea ice melt, Permafrost melt) pointing to human emissions of climate change is elementary at best, pathological at worst.

Clearly, you are not a serious person with a serious argument. You're questions are completely idiotic and irrelevant. Your claim that "...scientists were not around or kept record of the rate of heating or cooling the earth," is even more absurd.

I've never seen or heard of a peer-reviewed article in a scientific scholarly journal argue that position. Not even the most hardened global climate skeptic would dare offer that claim. I think they would be embarrassed to.

Lastly, I think you are a bizarre person who prides himself on exhibiting a ghastly propensity to boast about approaching a debate with a closed mind.

These are your words "I don't think there's any amount of proof that I could see, that would PROVE to me, that humans have rapidly increased global warming...." Then why are you here Brian? If your mind is already made up, and you admit no amount evidence or proof will ever convince you otherwise, I ask why the hell are you here posting in this thread?

 

[marsanges]

I'd like to defend him.

His questions arent illegitimate. In them is the nucleus of scientific enquiry, the old geologists who laid the groundwork of all palaeoclimatology set out with just such kinds of questions. How come there are oysters in my field, and such.

The crux seems to me to be in the willingness to reserve (i. e. withhold) judgement for the time being, and look at such questions and follw the evidence wherever it may lead as far as one can do with observations and deduction.

To say " I don't think there's any amount of proof ... that would PROVE to me .. " is of course strictly a statement of faith. Excluding an outcome right before any proof (evidence) has actually been looked at. Thats end of legitmiate discussion about science.

Still, to wonder about such seeming simple things seems quite innocent to me. As long as people are in principle willing to concede that there might actually be good evidence behind the global warming issue then it isnt a futile discussion.

 

[BrianH]

Why you would even assume your claim that "...scientists were not around or kept record of the rate of heating or cooling the earth," would have any bearing on the validity and reliability of the mountains of evidence that exist ( which include ice core samples, NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis, CRU direct surface temperature analysis, Satellite Data,Radiosondes, Sea level rise, Borehole analysis,Proxy Reconstructions,Glacial melt observations, Sea ice melt, Permafrost melt) pointing to human emissions of climate change is elementary at best, pathological at worst.

Clearly, you are not a serious person with a serious argument. You're questions are completely idiotic and irrelevant. Your claim that "...scientists were not around or kept record of the rate of heating or cooling the earth," is even more absurd.

I've never seen or heard of a peer-reviewed article in a scientific scholarly journal argue that position. Not even the most hardened global climate skeptic would dare offer that claim. I think they would be embarrassed to.

Lastly, I think you are a bizarre person who prides himself on exhibiting a ghastly propensity to boast about approaching a debate with a closed mind.

These are your words "I don't think there's any amount of proof that I could see, that would PROVE to me, that humans have rapidly increased global warming...." Then why are you here Brian? If your mind is already made up, and you admit no amount evidence or proof will ever convince you otherwise, I ask why the hell are you here posting in this thread?

"[/B]core samples, NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis, CRU direct surface temperature analysis, Satellite Data,Radiosondes, Sea level rise, Borehole analysis,Proxy Reconstructions,Glacial melt observations, Sea ice melt, Permafrost melt[/I])[/"

Like I said, until you can provide me all of these items that were collected 1,000,000 years ago... then you don't have PROOF. You have speculation based on information.
Did NASA take the direct surface temerature analysis 1,000,000 years ago?
Did they use Radiosondes 1,000,000 years ago?
How do they know what the sea-level was at 1,000,000 years ago?
Scientists also know that at one point in the earth's history, glaciers did not exist.... And at another point glaciers covered the earth....

All of your scientific obervation and speculation is great. It has merit to it and I'm sure the globe is warming... But considering that scientists DO NOT HAVE RECORD OF THE RATE OF THE WARMING OF THE EARTH PRIOR TO HISTORY, HOW CAN THEY BE %100 POSITIVE THAT THE RATE OF HEATING NOW IS SO ABNORMAL?

Do they know how fast the ice was melting at the end of the Ice Age? Exactly how fast it melted per year?

Clearly, you are a 19 year-old who thinks he has the answer to everything based on his research. You've spent you're time researching why global warming is and developed your opinion without reading why global warming isn't.

And as far as the thread goes, last I checked, you responded to a thread posted by me....Sorry to break it to you, but the world isn't all peaches and buttercups filled with nice little discussions that all end in happiness. Some of us don't believe everything we hear or read. Some of us have to be convinced by more. And considering that humans speeding up the process of global warming is a theory, it's going to take absolute proof.


"The most relevant change is in the quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There is evidence that greenhouse gas levels fell at the start of ice ages and rose during the retreat of the ice sheets, but it is difficult to establish cause and effect (see the notes above on the role of weathering). Greenhouse gas levels may also have been affected by other factors which have been proposed as causes of ice ages, such as the movement of continents and vulcanism.

The Snowball Earth hypothesis maintains that the severe freezing in the late Proterozoic was ended by an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and some supporters of Snowball Earth argue that it was caused by a reduction in atmospheric CO2. The hypothesis also warns of future Snowball Earths."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

A future snowball earth???? How could this be? The globe is warming!!!????

So what caused the rise in CO2 gases at the end of the Ice Age? Humans burning fossil fuels? Like I said, I believe that humans are contributing to global warming, I know levels of CO2 do affect the earth and infact do cause warming/cooling trends, and I don't think that global warming is fake, but I do believe that the majority of global warming is coming from natural climate change. The CO2 levels have fallen enough to create an Ice Age, and have risen enough to melt one without human help or interference.

My questions are only absurd to you because you cannot answer them. I'll give it to you that I'm obviously not as fluent as you are in the scientific mumbo-jumbo that you read, or your rhetoric, but I obviously have quite a bit more common sense than you have as well as an ability to think for myself. Believe it or not, libraries are filled with biased sources of information, all trying to make their own point. The fact is, we disagree, get over it. You've yet to provide proof, and I've yet to buy your BS.

 

[BrianH]

I'd like to defend him.

His questions arent illegitimate. In them is the nucleus of scientific enquiry, the old geologists who laid the groundwork of all palaeoclimatology set out with just such kinds of questions. How come there are oysters in my field, and such.

The crux seems to me to be in the willingness to reserve (i. e. withhold) judgement for the time being, and look at such questions and follw the evidence wherever it may lead as far as one can do with observations and deduction.

To say " I don't think there's any amount of proof ... that would PROVE to me .. " is of course strictly a statement of faith. Excluding an outcome right before any proof (evidence) has actually been looked at. Thats end of legitmiate discussion about science.

Still, to wonder about such seeming simple things seems quite innocent to me. As long as people are in principle willing to concede that there might actually be good evidence behind the global warming issue then it isnt a futile discussion.

Oddly enough...I agree .

I'll admit that I can be close-minded sometimes. I'm really open if someone does have proof, but my definition of proof may be a little more strict than others.

I also believe that my questions are quite legitimate.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

"[/B]But considering that scientists DO NOT HAVE RECORD OF THE RATE OF THE WARMING OF THE EARTH PRIOR TO HISTORY, HOW CAN THEY BE %100 POSITIVE THAT THE RATE OF HEATING NOW IS SO ABNORMAL?.

First of all, ask yourself if the claim that "scientists DO NOT HAVE RECORD OF THE RATE OF THE WARMING OF THE EARTH" is even true. (here's a hint genius, it is not true. We do have a record of the rate of warming)

It's almost as if you just made this up in your head and decided to run with it. What the hell do you think, among many other lines of evidence, ice core samples and borehole analysis are? They are a record of warming dating back millions and millions of years.

 

[BrianH]

First of all, ask yourself if this claim is even true. Did you just make this up in your head?

Then explain why this claim would even matter.

First of all, are you willing to debate the fact that scientists/using today's techonology were around 1,000,000 years ago? If you're claiming that i have to provide fact/evidence for this statement, you've got a long education ahead of you.

Therfore, if scientist were not around to track the rate of the warming of the earth...anything else is pure speculation based on information. I have more questions.

Why was last year a significantly colder year than most?
If the suns orbit around the galaxy as well as plate tectonics can affect how the globe-warms....why is it CO2 that is receiving all of the attention? Is the sun not orbiting the galaxy anymore? Are the plates no longer shifting?

Scientists have speculation about the rate of warming of the earth. Imagine if scientists had been around to track it at the ending of the ICE AGE...would they have been shittin their pants over CO2?

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

First of all, are you willing to debate the fact that scientists/using today's techonology were around 1,000,000 years ago? If you're claiming that i have to provide fact/evidence for this statement, you've got a long education ahead of you.

This is getting ridiculous and you are getting more desperate. You have already been told numerous times the answers to your questions by me in this thread.

Among many other lines of evidence, ice core samples and borehole analysis are a record of warming dating back millions and millions of years.

What the hell don't you understand about that?

Do you even know what an ice core sample is? It is obvious you do not.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Why was last year a significantly colder year than most?
If the suns orbit around the galaxy as well as plate tectonics can affect how the globe-warms....why is it CO2 that is receiving all of the attention? Is the sun not orbiting the galaxy anymore? Are the plates no longer shifting?

Scientists have speculation about the rate of warming of the earth. Imagine if scientists had been around to track it at the ending of the ICE AGE...would they have been shittin their pants over CO2?

1. Last year was not colder than most. Where are you getting this obviously inaccurate information from?

 

[BrianH]

This is getting ridiculous. You have already been told. Among many other lines of evidence, ice core samples and borehole analysis are a record of warming dating back millions and millions of years.

Oh yeah...I've been told a 19 year-old supreme knower of all things.

It's funny how advocates of global warming are lining their pockets as we speak. Google Al Gore, and those that sell carbon credits and see what you get. The plot thickens....They say, "Hmmm...they globes warming...let's make some money off of it.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
The earth is warming, but so are the other planets....Frickin ET needs to quit burning greenhouse gases or he'll have a global warming crisis on his hands.


So you can prove...without a reasonable doubt. That CO2 emissions have extremely impacted the globe, and sped up global warming?

I'm all ears sunshine...

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

Oh yeah...I've been told a 19 year-old supreme knower of all things.

It's funny how advocates of global warming are lining their pockets as we speak. Google Al Gore, and those that sell carbon credits and see what you get. The plot thickens....They say, "Hmmm...they globes warming...let's make some money off of it.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
The earth is warming, but so are the other planets....Frickin ET needs to quit burning greenhouse gases or he'll have a global warming crisis on his hands.


So you can prove...without a reasonable doubt. That CO2 emissions have extremely impacted the globe, and sped up global warming?

I'm all ears sunshine...

At least, I hope, you finally realize what ice core samples, borehole analysis are - empirical evidence of paleo climate (a record of climate dating back millions and millions of years) etc. I sincerely hope that issue has been put to rest.

And to properly explain some of your questions requires a first step. Do you know the difference between climate and weather? And if so, explain, in your own words, the difference in one sentence. I want to see exactly what you do and do not know.


As for Al Gore, I do not care about Al Gore, nor do I care about carbon credits or "people lining their pockets." That is a political issue irrelevant to my concern and having nothing to do with the science of climate science.

 

[BrianH]

At least you finally realize what ice core samples, borehole analysis are - empirical evidence of paleo climate etc.

And to explain this to you requires a small baby step. Do you know the difference between climate and weather? And what is it?

First off, you can attempt to belittle me by asking these questions...It shows you for the ignorant 19-year-old that you are. To assume that you are more intelligent than someone else based on your knowledge of a theory. Your doing about as crappy in this debate as you are in the "Who supports a Draft" thread.

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. Ice Core Samples are samples of snow and ice that have re-crystallized entrapping air bubbles from different time periods.

I'm certified in Geography smart-ass so I can pick-up anything you lay-down bud. I just don't choose to believe a theory that's not basd on Scientific fact, but observation and speculation. The same observation and speculation that have revealed that all of the planets in our solar system are experiencing warming at the global level. Like I said, the martians better cut that burning of fossil fuels. It'll lead to a global crisis. Did you know that Pluto is warming as well?

We can all see that you're a smartass, that's good, because you'll have to be to stay alive in these forums. Before you go around accusing people of ignorance, search yourself.

 

[BrianH]

1. Last year was not colder than most. Where are you getting this obviously inaccurate information from?

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

Here's one source for starters....

DId you know it snowed over 12 inches on the coast of Texas a few years ago??? Hadn't done that in a hundred years. That is fact my friend.

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2008/02/last-years-reality-global-cooling.html

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.