NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently sat down and watched Gore's rhetoric-ridden propaganda biopic about his life and global warming. Having suffered through the entire movie, including Al's self-pitying narration of the 2000 election, I was shocked to find that one of the most fundamental assertions in the film was false. It turns out that 1998 is not, in fact, the warmest year on record; in fact, the algorithm used to arrive at that conclusion was not only deeply shrouded in secrecy, but also critically flawed. After a conscientious scientists pointed out this error, the revised data indicated that 1934 was the most sweltering year on record.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

In fact, 5 of the 10 hottest years on record occur between 1921 and 1939!

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1868

It turns out that in such places as Delaware, Ohio, there has been a steady cooling trend since the 1940s.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/ushcn/stationoftheweek.jsp

But these are just two mere samples of the hideous untruths which Gore and other spin doctors have uttered. Indeed, I encourage all of you to peruse the following sites in order to disprove the vile "talking points" of the alarmists lest we are driven to adopting such economically constricting measures as were enacted in Europe. Know the facts -- say "no" to alarmism.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp
http://globalwarming.org/

Also, here's an excellent FAQ by a respected organization regarding so-called "global warming."

http://www.marshall.org/subcategory.php?id=9

http://static.flickr.com/6/69250266_8c1f5c979c.jpg

Are you doing this for Exxon?

MTAE thread: Fails.

Go ahead, put your head into the sand. Soon sand is all you'll find all over the globe, anyway, thanks to people like you.

While I disagree with your politics F&G, and raise an eyebrow to your biased spin on this issue. You are 100% correct in this thread, NASA made a terrible mistake, and made it worse by keeping it secret for a long time without allowing any proper scrutiny from actual scientists, it's ironic that the bloggers were the ones who actually looked at the figures.

Meep.

It's a shame that F&G posted this, since now what is otherwise a very important issue will be hijacked by useless 'ZOMG go away troll' comments.

It's a shame that F&G posted this, since now what is otherwise a very important issue will be hijacked by useless 'ZOMG go away troll' comments.

Stole the words from my mouth. It's a shame this wasn't FnG's first thread - it would have sparked some good debate.

Go ahead, put your head into the sand. Soon sand is all you'll find all over the globe, anyway, thanks to people like you.

I contributed to more beaches? Cool! :)

In all seriousness, though, this reveals a glaring error in previous calculations and brings to light a jarring mistake in Gore's inconvenient movie. You may say that I tend to "bury my head in the sand"; however, if you so unconditionally accept global warming without questioning it critically, you are the one committing a grave misreckoning. In this case, the science behind much of our current information has been proven false. And even the most fervent global warming scientists are admitting their misstep -- unless you're so fanatically devoted to your ideal of climate that you're unwilling to see what's right before your eyes, I suggest you wake up and realize it, too.

Stole the words from my mouth. It's a shame this wasn't FnG's first thread - it would have sparked some good debate.

I would try and start one now but I have to go to bed.

I am optomistic though that a debate will start by page 6. ;)

Please note that the link says that these temperatures are from the lower 48 United States, not global. A significant portion of the United States surface area (excluding the area that is most heavily influenced by the changes) cannot serve as an accurate reflection of global temperature. Regional does not equal global.

Stole the words from my mouth. It's a shame this wasn't FnG's first thread - it would have sparked some good debate.

If one of you guys wants to repost the basic premise, I'll gladly ask for my thread to be deleted.

Argumentum ad infinitum.





:headbang:

Graph Link (http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/images/carbon_dioxide.jpg)

And yes, I do know that there's no credit for it, but I'm looking...

EDIT: oh, hey! wait a minute...

Where the pic was from (http://www.seed.slb.com/en/index.htm)

1934 was the warmest year on record? Great, it was still only about 70 years ago, on a global scale, that's nothing.

You want some proof of Global warming?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9717

http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/permafrost/climate_e.php

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/permafrost.shtml

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6962

1934 was the warmest year on record? Great, it was still only about 70 years ago, on a global scale, that's nothing.

The whole debate, though, is that humans have caused global warming in the last few decades by artificially inflating CO2 levels past anything seen before. The highest peak of that I've seen on any chart was in the 1970s (before things like the US govt.s' Clean Air) and post-2005.

You want some proof of Global warming?

http://http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9717

http://http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/permafrost/climate_e.php

http://http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/permafrost.shtml

http://http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6962

Either your links aren't working or my internet isn't. Hopefully for me it's the former and not the latter. :/

Either your links aren't working or my internet isn't. Hopefully for me it's the former and not the latter. :/


It's my links, they never seem to work for some reason:confused:

It's my links, they never seem to work for some reason:confused:

For some reason, you put "http://" twice; just delete the first instance and it works.

its these kind of people that will one day realize how stupid they are...


those links: just take one http:// off, i guess he accidenlty had 2

It's my links, they never seem to work for some reason:confused:

They seem to have http:// repeated at the start. That may not be helpful. Anyway, I thought 2005 or 2006 was the hottest year on record? And for the record I'm yet to watch AIT.

wow a lot of responses to him



well i live in missouri of united states and i'm in drumline we stay out from 9-2 in the afternoon. ITS FUCKING 105 OUT THERE!! AND IT WILL STAY THAT WAY FOR a WHOLE NOTHER WEEK!

It turns out that in such places as Delaware, Ohio, there has been a steady cooling trend since the 1940s.
You are aware that global warming doesn't mean that everywhere on the planet gets warmer, right? It means that overall, the temperature goes up, but in some places it will get cooler. This is to be expected.

I recently sat down and watched Gore's rhetoric-ridden propaganda biopic about his life and global warming. Having suffered through the entire movie, including Al's self-pitying narration of the 2000 election,

did u even stop to think about the TRUE facts? serriosly-can u be any more close minded?

did u even stop to think about the TRUE facts? serriosly-can u be any more close minded?

Look. He's made a fair argument and linked some information. No matter how flawed, debate him, not the person. Like I said before, it's too bad FnG posted this. Act as if someone else did.

FnG: Do you have any desire to counter my argument that your numbers only reflect the lower 48 States and not the entire world or should I write you off as completely irrelevant?

yes, i understand gore bull shited us in some parts from FnG's cited articles, but hes explained maybe 4-5 arguements..which have a counter arguement, so where are we getting at?

FnG: Do you have any desire to counter my argument that your numbers only reflect the lower 48 States and not the entire world or should I write you off as completely irrelevant?

He's a troll. Don't waste your time.


http://enigma.dune.net/~eric/Do-not-feed-the-troll.PNG

For some reason, you put "http://" twice; just delete the first instance and it works.

ok, links fixed, thanks.

~~SNIP~~
I guess NASA is a flunky US organization?

2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html)

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/140894main_BlueMarble_2005_warm.jpg

NOAA REPORTS 2006 WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD FOR U.S. (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2772.htm)

Climate Experts Worry as 2006 Is Hottest Year on Record in U.S. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901949.html)

Last year was the warmest in the continental United States in the past 112 years -- capping a nine-year warming streak "unprecedented in the historical record" that was driven in part by the burning of fossil fuels, the government reported yesterday.

According to the government's National Climatic Data Center, the record-breaking warmth -- which caused daffodils and cherry trees to bloom throughout the East on New Year's Day -- was the result of both unusual regional weather patterns and the long-term effects of the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Why do we bother with you FAG?

He's a troll. Don't waste your time.


http://enigma.dune.net/~eric/Do-not-feed-the-troll.PNG


I understand your viewpoint, but I have always tried to deal politely with everyone. Furthermore, I do not want lurkers to actually consider his viewpoints valid if he does not accurately back them up and if he ignores my (second, more confrontational) post then he looks bad to people who haven't made up their minds. I can also hold out the hope that whoever I debate will learn something, or perhaps teach me something. Perhaps there is something that FnG knows on the topic that I do not, however unlikely that may be.

Why do we bother with you FAG?

Perhaps you didn't read what I said -- there was a grievous error with these figures which only recently came to light. If I understand correctly, all data after 1999 was flawed. Thus neither 2005 nor 2006 were the warmest years on record, but rather 1934.

FnG: Do you have any desire to counter my argument that your numbers only reflect the lower 48 States and not the entire world or should I write you off as completely irrelevant?

I'm simply talking about the US. I don't see how the entire world's temperature could be known in 1934, as we didn't have sufficiently advanced technology in order to monitor it. We didn't have thermometers everywhere, especially in Antartica, Asia, and Africa. And I was mostly refuting Gore's assertion, which dealt only with the US.

Are you doing this for Exxon?
Again with the oil companies. What the hell is wrong with oil companies?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,497853,00.html
Earlier this year, Etienne met with executives at French oil company Total, and told them what the Arctic was once like and how the ice is shrinking today. He also asked them for the €7 million ($9.6 million) he needed for his next spectacular adventure.

Total, the world's sixth-largest oil company, is worth €143 billion, employs 95,000 people worldwide and produces 2.36 million barrels of oil and natural gas a day. Total made the internal decision long ago to become as environmentally friendly as possible, although many see these kinds of voluntary commitments as less than convincing, especially coming from an oil company.

[...]

With the help of Total, Etienne is now planning his return to the Arctic. He wants to make one last trip, because he believes that the world is changing at the pole, and because he wants to understand exactly what's happening there.

You know, F&G, the economy isn't everything. Sure, it's great to have it be strong, but what's the harm in doing things that allow us to have a strong economy WITHOUT harming the environment? That is possible, you know, and it would be healthier for everyone.

Even if global warming was false--which it isn't--pollution is a serious problem and ought to be dealt with. Technology is advancing closer and closer to the point where industry could exist with nature and neither one would be harmed. That, of course, would require nanotechnology, and we're not there for a bit yet, but making measures now to be more enviro-friendly will make the transition a lot easier.

I'm simply talking about the US. I don't see how the entire world's temperature could be known in 1934, as we didn't have sufficiently advanced technology in order to monitor it. We didn't have thermometers everywhere, especially in Antartica, Asia, and Africa. And I was mostly refuting Gore's assertion, which dealt only with the US.

so then this whole thread becomes rather pointless?

I'm simply talking about the US. I don't see how the entire world's temperature could be known in 1934, as we didn't have sufficiently advanced technology in order to monitor it. We didn't have thermometers everywhere, especially in Antartica, Asia, and Africa. And I was mostly refuting Gore's assertion, which dealt only with the US.

Wait a second...1934...wasn't that the year the New Deal stuff was implimented? I recall, among other things, some serious tree planting going on, as well as a serious reduction in industrial development and utilization due to the Great Depression.

Could be the surge downward was only due to the lack of human-created CO2 pumping into the atmosphere as it had been for the past thirty years or so previously.

so then this whole thread becomes rather pointless?

It shows how much of the hype regarding global warming has a decidedly shaky scientific premise.

1934 was the warmest year on record? Great, it was still only about 70 years ago, on a global scale, that's nothing.


Considering how quickly everyone is to blame carbon emmission is absolutely is significant considering that there was only a fraction of the human-caused carbon emmissions in '34. Duh!


... unless there is another cause for it.... (blasphemy!!)

Could be the surge downward was only due to the lack of human-created CO2 pumping into the atmosphere as it had been for the past thirty years or so previously.

If you trust what "scientists" tell you about global warming, once you place carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it remains there, contributing to the greenhouse effect. That is, even if we stopped producing any greenhouse gases right this minute (no breathing, no farting), the effect of global warming would stay constant. It would not decrease. That's why they talking about "slowing down" the process rather than "reversing" it.

I'm simply talking about the US. I don't see how the entire world's temperature could be known in 1934, as we didn't have sufficiently advanced technology in order to monitor it. We didn't have thermometers everywhere, especially in Antartica, Asia, and Africa. And I was mostly refuting Gore's assertion, which dealt only with the US.


Actually, if I remember the film correctly (it has been a while) his assertions only dealt with global temperature. He was making a film about global warming, global temperature would be the smartest thing to monitor. But even if he didn't it is irrelevant, the measured surface area is about 2% of the world's total area (more like 6% of land area).

And... by looking around the site I found a list of temperatures just like the US list but for the world.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.txt

Ooo... pretty data! According to this 2005 was the hottest year on record, followed by 1998 and 2002 with 1934 not even coming close.

You know, F&G, the economy isn't everything. Sure, it's great to have it be strong, but what's the harm in doing things that allow us to have a strong economy WITHOUT harming the environment? That is possible, you know, and it would be healthier for everyone.

Even if global warming was false--which it isn't--pollution is a serious problem and ought to be dealt with. Technology is advancing closer and closer to the point where industry could exist with nature and neither one would be harmed. That, of course, would require nanotechnology, and we're not there for a bit yet, but making measures now to be more enviro-friendly will make the transition a lot easier.

straw-man - everything 'harms' the environment. Tornadoes, farms, beaver dams, tsunamis, oil spills, highways. Each has an effect. The real question is how much effect on the environment do we consider tolerable from man-made endeavors.

Wait a second...1934...wasn't that the year the New Deal stuff was implimented? I recall, among other things, some serious tree planting going on, as well as a serious reduction in industrial development and utilization due to the Great Depression.
No.

The climate doesn't change for one country because of a change of their policies, and certainly not because of an economic downturn or setting up national parks.

If the figures are correct (and I don't know, because I'm not a climatologist of any sort), it's probably a bit of a blip. Lots of random things happen all the time that make it warmer or colder in one year than another. I recall Mt Krakatoa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anak_Krakatau#Global_climate) exploding and the globe being 1.2°C colder as a result of all the dust and ash.

It shows how much of the hype regarding global warming has a decidedly shaky scientific premise.

Really. Given that we're talking about global warming and America only makes up part of the globe, I daresay it does nothing of the sort, even if your facts were correct, which they are not.

Surprise surprise, but America is not the world.

Mystical Skeptic: Well I guess you've a point there, but maintaining the biosphere is in our best interests, as that biosphere is what keeps everything within it going.

Take this for an example: here in Colorado, we've killed off almost all of the natural predators of the deer and elk population. Because we've killed their predators that filled a niche keeping them from becoming overpopulated, they can now become overpopulated and eat the plants faster than they can regrow. It throws the whole system out of whack.

Now to keep it in whack we have to hunt the deer and elk yearly to keep the populations down. We have to waste ammunition, time, and money because we made a mistake that was easily not makeable.

We can live in harmony with the environment without sacrificing our way of life. It's tough, and it means we won't be super prosperous and have rich people who have huge collections of five hundred cars and so on, but it can still work. I want our way of life to continue as much as anyone, but I don't want that way of life to destroy the environment around us. With technology, it's possible. It just requires more work, and we'd be better off for it.

The sad part is not that FAG spews this shit. That much is expected from such an obvious troll.

The sad part is people ACTUALLY believe this crap.

If you trust what "scientists" tell you about global warming, once you place carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it remains there, contributing to the greenhouse effect. That is, even if we stopped producing any greenhouse gases right this minute (no breathing, no farting), the effect of global warming would stay constant. It would not decrease. That's why they talking about "slowing down" the process rather than "reversing" it.

True. We can't reverse it because we've done too much damage already.

But we can slow it down, and that's a good thing, because it buys us time.

And yeah I trust scientists. Scientists invented the computer you're using. Scientists invented pretty much everything in our modern way of life. Scientists, shockingly, do know what they're talking about, and I recognize that I am not the world and just because I do not understand certain things does not make them untrue.
No.

The climate doesn't change for one country because of a change of their policies, and certainly not because of an economic downturn or setting up national parks.

If the figures are correct (and I don't know, because I'm not a climatologist of any sort), it's probably a bit of a blip. Lots of random things happen all the time that make it warmer or colder in one year than another. I recall Mt Krakatoa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anak_Krakatau#Global_climate) exploding and the globe being 1.2°C colder as a result of all the dust and ash.
Whoopsie. Guess that's why I'm not a climatologist.

It shows how much of the hype regarding global warming has a decidedly shaky scientific premise.

That's what they said about smoking in the 1970's. Give the world 30 or so years, any questioning global warming will be just like saying tobacco is good for you. By that point it may be to late, but what can ya do.

Given that we're talking about global warming and America only makes up part of the globe

If, according to global warming, the Sahara should become drier but it suddenly turns into a sub-tropical rain-forest, that would indicate an underlying problem with the basic hypothesis. It doesn't matter that the Sahara only makes up "part of the globe"; that's not how scientific proof works. I might as well say that no even numbers are prime, because 2 is just "one" number. Your comment to the contrary is quite disingenuous.

even if your facts were correct, which they are not.

Yes, they are. You can't just ignore facts you dislike.

If, according to global warming, the Sahara should become drier but it suddenly turns into a sub-tropical rain-forest, that would indicate an underlying problem with the basic hypothesis. It doesn't matter that the Sahara only makes up "part of the globe"; that's not how scientific proof works. I might as well say that no even numbers are prime, because 2 is just "one" number. Your comment to the contrary is quite disingenuous.
Well, that's true again, but your analogy is flawed. We're talking about specific weather patterns in a short period of time in one small part of the world, not an impossible event.



Yes, they are. You can't just ignore facts you dislike.
Try taking your own advice. You ignore facts you dislike on a regular basis. We're not ignoring your facts. We're explaining your incorrect interpretations OF the facts.

And yeah I trust scientists.

Then, by our own admission, your suggestion regarding the Great Depression is not feasible.

Then, by our own admission, your suggestion regarding the Great Depression is not feasible.

Which I admitted. It was idle speculation by an uninformed person who should know better.

That's what they said about smoking in the 1970's. Give the world 30 or so years, any questioning global warming will be just like saying tobacco is good for you. By that point it may be to late, but what can ya do.

Give it 30 years and global warming will end up in the same place global cooling found itself -- the rubbish heap.

Global warming doesn't really matter in the long run anyway. Humans will adapt to the new conditions, either by improving their technology (most likely) or by evolving to live in the new conditions.

Global warming doesn't really matter in the long run anyway. Humans will adapt to the new conditions, either by improving their technology (most likely) or by evolving to live in the new conditions.

We'll suffer heavy losses, including possibly civilization in the worst case scenario(which would basically be Peak Oil and Global Warming hitting us with a one two punch in the face destroying our economies beyond the point of recovery.)

And such evolution would require a scale larger than that of our current man-produced Global Warming, so it's not something we should rely on.

Again with the oil companies. What the hell is wrong with oil companies?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,497853,00.html

I don't have a problem with oil companies persay, only those privately owned.

I don't have a problem with oil companies persay, only those privately owned.

So you're fine with nationalized oil industries, such as Iran's, whose proceeds fund terrorist groups and nuclear weapon construction?

And such evolution would require a scale larger than that of our current man-produced Global Warming, so it's not something we should rely on.Depends. If rapid evolution is more than something thought up by drunken biologists at a sci-fi convention, you'd be dead wrong.

On a side note: no reason to debate anything related to climate change on NSG. The American debates on here evidently cannot see it as anything but party politics, and cannot fathom that while science isn't perfect, it isn't a matter of opinion, what 'feels' right, or if the assholes talking about it are wearing nice ties or 'connect' with Average Joe, and won't go away because some clever little **** diversifies and throws about red herrings like a fucking fish monger in a food fight.

We'll suffer heavy losses, including possibly civilization in the worst case scenario(which would basically be Peak Oil and Global Warming hitting us with a one two punch in the face destroying our economies beyond the point of recovery.)

And such evolution would require a scale larger than that of our current man-produced Global Warming, so it's not something we should rely on.

LOL typical alarmist crap. It used to be just the loony cults.

http://www.weblogcartoons.com/cartoons/end.gif

I don't have a problem with oil companies persay, only those privately owned.

Yes - don't you know - socialist carbon dioxide is actually GOOD for the environment! LOL.

So you're fine with nationalized oil industries, such as Iran's, whose proceeds fund terrorist groups and nuclear weapon construction?

If the nuke drops on your house Freedom, then yes I am perfectly fine with it.

Also, US oil funds nukes and terrorist groups too, I can name a few: The Heritage Foundation, Project for a New American Century, Free Republic, Blackwater etc

Depends. If rapid evolution is more than something thought up by drunken biologists at a sci-fi convention, you'd be dead wrong.

Indeed I would be, and frankly? I'd be glad I was wrong in that instance.


On a side note: no reason to debate anything related to climate change on NSG. The American debates on here evidently cannot see it as anything but party politics, and cannot fathom that while science isn't perfect, it isn't a matter of opinion, what 'feels' right, or if the assholes talking about it are wearing nice ties or 'connect' with Average Joe, and won't go away because some clever little **** diversifies and throws about red herrings like a fucking fish monger in a food fight.

Exactly. But hey, we're combating ignorance, and that's always good.

Mystic Skeptic: I'm talking about a worst case scenario, which I personally find about as likely as my getting struck by lighting while winning the national lottery while talking to George Bush about the Cubs winning the World Series.

If the nuke drops on your house Freedom, then yes I am perfectly fine with it.

I admire you for some things but sometimes you're just as loony as he is.

If the nuke drops on your house Freedom, then yes I am perfectly fine with it.

Also, US oil funds nukes and terrorist groups too, I can name a few: The Heritage Foundation, Project for a New American Century, Free Republic, Blackwater etc

LOL!!! thats right. Just last week the Heritage Foundation took 41 Koreans hostage, killed two and made political demands in exchange for the lives of the rest!

What? That wasn't them?

Oh. Well what about when the P4NAC went and crashed those planes into the trade center! That was reeeeal bad!!

That wasn't them either?

Dang. Well - I'm sure they did something vile and evil because that's what my professor told me and he knows everything. I would never question his dogma! He really KNOWS what terrorism is - it is not agreeing with him!

Mystic Skeptic: I'm talking about a worst case scenario, which I personally find about as likely as my getting struck by lighting while winning the national lottery while talking to George Bush about the Cubs winning the World Series.

whoooa. What numbers you playing? :)

whoooa. What numbers you playing? :)

Nothing exact, really. Why do you ask?

It's foolish to say that global warming is a hoax.. But the facts presented by Gore are definately exaggerated and blown way out of proportion. Gore is a better propaganda man than a science man. All this hype about GW is really just a fad.. comparable to the Y2K scare or pet rocks, and furbies.

Nothing exact, really. Why do you ask?

nothing - that was a lottery pun. And not a very good one.

Global warming?

To sum it up in one line..

An invention by the powers that be in order to get more money from us. IE BULLSHIT.

LOL!!! thats right. Just last week the Heritage Foundation took 41 Koreans hostage, killed two and made political demands in exchange for the lives of the rest!

What? That wasn't them?

Oh. Well what about when the P4NAC went and crashed those planes into the trade center! That was reeeeal bad!!

That wasn't them either?

Dang. Well - I'm sure they did something vile and evil because that's what my professor told me and he knows everything. I would never question his dogma! He really KNOWS what terrorism is - it is not agreeing with him!
No, their more subtle about it than that, they incite violence through lobbying for policy through official processes that would result in said terrorist actions against states. Contras etc..

That's the thing with state-sponsored terrorism, it hides under the guise of legitimacy.

Global warming?

To sum it up in one line..

An invention by the powers that be in order to get more money from us. IE BULLSHIT.

Ignorance and paranoia, what a lovely combination you display.

Thanks to global warming, there's a newly discovered stone age settlement on the bottom of the english channel.

OP loses again.

South Lorenya that wasn't because of Global Warming.

And...

*Holds up a "Ban the FAG" sign*

*Holds up a "Ban the FAG" sign*Who knew such a short sentence could insult in so many ways? I'm torn between extending my condolences for your deceased intellect, and congratulating you on your inventiveness.

Consider this also. Let us say that 1934 was the warmest year on record; that was around the time of the two hurricane seasons which could be considered the worst in history; 1932 and 1933. What is even more interesting is that the temperature started decreasing and the hurricanes disappeared. Of course, we can all accept that hurricanes are made worse by warmer waters.

What is interesting though is that the 2005 season was the last bad hurricane season. 2006 was extremely quiet, and the same has happened this year. My suspicion is that the temperature increases of the 1970s through 1990s has stopped and there has been a downward trend, as evidenced by all the snow events that have been happening in the last few years.

http://static.flickr.com/6/69250266_8c1f5c979c.jpg

http://www.forumspile.com/Thread-I_like_where_this_thread_is_going.jpg

Anybody needs me, i may be conferring with Desperate Measures. :)

Global warming?

To sum it up in one line..

An invention by the powers that be in order to get more money from us. IE BULLSHIT.
Hehe, you're cute.
Wanna hang out?
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/491.gif

Meep.

Who's paying you to say that?!

WHO DOES NUMBER TWO WORK FOR?

Stole the words from my mouth. It's a shame this wasn't FnG's first thread - it would have sparked some good debate.

So FnG wasn't on in some other incarnation when these threads had more meat in 'em?

Why do we bother with you FAG?

C'mon, RO needs some kind of competition.
Besides this place wouldn't be much fun if we didn't argue about the littlest AND the biggest things for whatever reason we had offhand. :)

So FnG wasn't on in some other incarnation when these threads had more meat in 'em?

Err... You missed the point.

I said that because, no matter how you spin it, anything he says will be taken as "OMG troll!" and brushed aside. If it was his first thread or if someone else posted this, there would be some debate with him...

Though there is some debate now, which is good. And I'll post this again for reconsideration, since I'm bored anyway:

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/images/carbon_dioxide.jpg

It shows how much of the hype regarding global warming has a decidedly shaky scientific premise.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/mad/boese055.gif

Err... You missed the point.Maybe, maybe not. I'm not liable to take this particular thread seriously, for the exact reason you're explaining anyway. I had ulterior motives for the question.

I said that because, no matter how you spin it, anything he says will be taken as "OMG troll!" and brushed aside. If it was his first thread or if someone else posted this, there would be some debate with him...

Though there is some debate now, which is good. And I'll post this again for reconsideration, since I'm bored anyway:

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/images/carbon_dioxide.jpg

I'll watch and see what pops up, but i can't honestly say this particular topic i'm a "greenhorn" to. :p

It's worth remembering that all believers in Glowball Worming are really nothing more than Doomsday Cultists. If you doubt me note Agerias' reaction to evidence that Glowball Worming is nothing more than a hoax. :p




http://static.flickr.com/6/69250266_8c1f5c979c.jpg



In other words, cultists like Agerias know about the evidence that Glowball Worming is nothing but a device to make money off the dumb and the gullible but belief in this myth provides them with comfort and therefore they will cling to it in the face of all evidence against it. Ecofreaks want the world to end, they need the world to end and they'll always express unhappiness whenever you show them that their little Doomsday will not come off as scheduled. :D

Sucks to be a Leftist! ^_~

All this hype about GW is really just a fad.. comparable to the Y2K scare or pet rocks, and furbies.
Heh. You're silly. Do you know how to access the Forum Archives?
Perhaps you should punch up the topic and read whatever else might've come up about it.

It's worth remembering that all believers in Glowball Worming are really nothing more than Doomsday Cultists. If you doubt me note Agerias' reaction to evidence that Glowball Worming is nothing more than a hoax. :p








In other words, cultists like Agerias know about the evidence that Glowball Worming is nothing but a device to make money off the dumb and the gullible but belief in this myth provides them with comfort and therefore they will cling to it in the face of all evidence against it. Ecofreaks want the world to end, they need the world to end and they'll always express unhappiness whenever you show them that their little Doomsday will not come off as scheduled. :D

Sucks to be a Leftist! ^_~Good thing there's a significant amount of funding and support AGAINST the issue of pronounced climate change by religious groups that match just about exactly what you're describing ... take "Rapture" fans, for example. Take ... well, a few of the republican so-called candidates for the next presidential election.

Perhaps, peruse?:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/
Topical AND available at a newsstand near you!

Heh. You're silly. Do you know how to access the Forum Archives?
Perhaps you should punch up the topic and read whatever else might've come up about it.

And everything in the forum archives boils down to the same: Global Warming cultists dislike the evidence against their position but can't refute it and therefore try to dismiss it with a wave of their hand. That's why they lose all the debates. :)

So in the end, Soupnam is right. the Global Warming cult really is on the same order as the Y2K scare although I doubt that it's respectable enough to be compared to the furbies! ^_~

Perhaps, peruse?:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/
Topical AND available at a newsstand near you!

Am I just tired, or does their position come off as a bit... elitist?

It's almost as if they're berating Americans (people who've obviously not read the evidence, either from being too lazy or too busy) for not... not using their brains and making refutations.

And everything in the forum archives boils down to the same: Global Warming cultists dislike the evidence against their position but can't refute it and therefore try to dismiss it with a wave of their hand. That's why they lose all the debates. :)
Really? Prove it. Let's see a point-by-point quantification of your assessment there, else it's obvious lack of integrity keeps it right where it is, and we chuckle you off, you kidder.

So in the end, Soupnam is right. the Global Warming cult really is on the same order as the Y2K scare although I doubt that it's respectable enough to be compared to the furbies! ^_~Erm, there's not an end that qualifies your statement here, either, since Y2k came & went. The issue of drastic climate change is ongoing, pertinent, and yes, drastic. It's okay if you don't know anything about it and keep talking like that, though, since it makes the thread more interesting. Especially without any forthcoming evidence or support. Just blab. :)

Am I just tired, or does their position come off as a bit... elitist?

It's almost as if they're berating Americans (people who've obviously not read the evidence, either from being too lazy or too busy) for not... not using their brains and making refutations.
They're partially right, but specifically, they mean people that are represented by Solarlandus and FnG's obviously singular trolldom. :)

EDIT : They also, perhaps, feel the U.S. merits the derision somewhat, given how long the populace has endured Bush.

And everything in the forum archives boils down to the same: Global Warming cultists dislike the evidence against their position but can't refute it and therefore try to dismiss it with a wave of their hand. That's why they lose all the debates. :)

So in the end, Soupnam is right. the Global Warming cult really is on the same order as the Y2K scare although I doubt that it's respectable enough to be compared to the furbies! ^_~
You are disgustingly rude and dismissive far beyond any claims you make of their dismissive attitudes.

Good thing there's a significant amount of funding and support AGAINST the issue of pronounced climate change by religious groups that match just about exactly what you're describing ... take "Rapture" fans, for example. Take ... well, a few of the republican so-called candidates for the next presidential election.

Perhaps, peruse?:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/
Topical AND available at a newsstand near you!

See? You think Global Warming is nothing more than a cult as well or else you wouldn't have mentioned that it's in competition with other religions. :)

And thanks for the tip. Newsweek does provide a nice example of how ad hominem propaganda is really the only thing the Left can do. That's another sign that the Left is on the losing side of this debate and that Global Warming is just another cult. :D

Isn't amusing that Newsweek thinks NASA is a "Rapture" fan and that it somehow knows more about science than NASA does? :p

Shows what *their* magazine is worth! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

They're partially right, but specifically, they mean people that are represented by Solarlandus and FnG's obviously singular trolldom. :)

Well, one thing I've noticed is that speculation about global warming is erratic. One study (I can't look it up... damn my school! The one night I need their databases!) said there was a 50% chance (hah) that the climate's temp increase would double, and another said that chance was significantly less...

I'm sorry. It'd help if I could find this. But my college's library is under maint, so I can't use their online databases.

Oh, and one way to combat greenhouse gas emissions from power plants is to use more nuclear power in combination with nuclear waste reprocessing (to greatly reduce the amount of waste produced)

You are disgustingly rude and dismissive far beyond any claims you make of their dismissive attitudes.


Quite right. By leftist standards it is always wrong of me to point out that they are wrong. :)

You are disgustingly rude and dismissive far beyond any claims you make of their dismissive attitudes.

Yeah, I found that a good bit funny.

See? You think Global Warming is nothing more than a cult as well or else you wouldn't have mentioned that it's in competition with other religions. :)

And thanks for the tip. Newsweek does provide a nice example of how ad hominem propaganda is really the only thing the Left can do. That's another sign that the Left is on the losing side of this debate and that Global Warming is just another cult. :D

Isn't amusing that Newsweek thinks NASA is a "Rapture" fan and that it somehow knows more about science than NASA does? :p

Shows what *their* magazine is worth! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Are you not seeing your own blatant hypocrisy here? You're talking constantly about the "idiocy" of the left and how they can't refute anything so they just "dismiss" it with a wave of their hand, and use ad hominem propaganda.

Has it occurred to you that you're doing exactly that?

Quite right. By leftist standards it is always wrong of me to point out that they are wrong. :)

Your being dismissive allthewhile calling the other side dismissive.

It's like the pot calling the kettle black.

See? You think Global Warming is nothing more than a cult as well or else you wouldn't have mentioned that it's in competition with other religions. :)Tee hee. Stop, you cad.
*blushes*


And thanks for the tip. Newsweek does provide a nice example of how ad hominem propaganda is really the only thing the Left can do. That's another sign that the Left is on the losing side of this debate and that Global Warming is just another cult. :DYou mean you can tell all that without examples?
:)


Isn't amusing that Newsweek thinks NASA is a "Rapture" fan and that it somehow knows more about science than NASA does? :p
Ah, as alluded to, there's been a couple references here about how certain people in NASA prominence were provided with ample incentive to represent corporate interests regarding climate change. Yes, believe it or not, it's something you can look up and itemize your argument with, for everyone! Wouldn't that be a hoot?

Shows what *their* magazine is worth! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Three rolleyes, eh? Got some kind of condition, eh? Nothing the meds you've been ignoring can't help.

Oh, and I'm fairly sure that by ANYONE's standards, it's wrong to point out other people are wrong by simply saying that they are wrong.

Well, one thing I've noticed is that speculation about global warming is erratic. One study (I can't look it up... damn my school! The one night I need their databases!) said there was a 50% chance (hah) that the climate's temp increase would double, and another said that chance was significantly less...

I'm sorry. It'd help if I could find this. But my college's library is under maint, so I can't use their online databases.
Well, if you know some names or places, that'll help. This comes up a lot, which is why i usually make reference to stuff in the Forum Archives.
There really, REALLY are very few topics that don't get through this forum, and this topic inparticular has quite a bit of mileage on it.

Oh, and one way to combat greenhouse gas emissions from power plants is to use more nuclear power in combination with nuclear waste reprocessing (to greatly reduce the amount of waste produced)There's a lot we can do to stave off the nastiest effects, but we appear to be in for a nasty ride anyway.

Oh, and I'm fairly sure that by ANYONE's standards, it's wrong to point out other people are wrong by simply saying that they are wrong.

:eek:
WhatwhatWHAT?!?

*forum screeches to a halt*

There was this thread just a little while back about "the onus" of certain arguments .... :)

The CQ Researcher. I used it often last year to get meself through my Advocacy and Argument (long name for a speech class) class last quarter...

though, admittedly, my professor required it. :P

GOOOOD stuff about... well, just about everything. But you have to be a member of a college that has a subscription to it, apparently. You see, while the California public school system is shitty, you find that even the lower level colleges in California are good.

:eek:
WhatwhatWHAT?!?

*forum screeches to a halt*

There was this thread just a little while back about "the onus" of certain arguments .... :)

No, I was just saying it's wrong to say that someone else is wrong and then not even back it up...

No, I was just saying it's wrong to say that someone else is wrong and then not even back it up...

Twas just a little jape.
:D

But, jokes aside, this forum really would be a WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT if it weren't for that particular attitude.

The CQ Researcher. I used it often last year to get meself through my Advocacy and Argument (long name for a speech class) class last quarter...

though, admittedly, my professor required it. :P

GOOOOD stuff about... well, just about everything. But you have to be a member of a college that has a subscription to it, apparently. You see, while the California public school system is shitty, you find that even the lower level colleges in California are good.

When i was first starting in doing a lot of net stuff, that wasn't a problem. Then it was.
Then it wasn't again. I do know what you're talking about, though.

Freedom reminds of those oil company ads trying to put smoke over GW..

Carbon Dioxide is good!

I am sooo going to turn someone into a frog ...

No, I'm not allowed to. I'm just having a little tanty after reading SEVEN copies of a newcomer's post in this thread.

I know you can't do anything about it, regulars, and mods can only cruise the moderation queue and sigh, but if you see any double, triple, septuple-ups, could you please point them to this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511849) and/or mention to them that they can delete their own posts.

And while I'm here, let's not fall into any you're-a-troll-no-you're-a-troll holes tonight, m'kay?

And while I'm here, let's not fall into any you're-a-troll-no-you're-a-troll holes tonight, m'kay?

Wasn't this thread doomed from the beginning anyway?

Guess what, several GW conferences have been canceled due to rain!

Clearly this disproves the scientific theory of GW!

Wasn't this thread doomed from the beginning anyway?
Oh ye of little faith, you just got crossed off my Christmas list.

The mods place so much reliance on the ingenuity and intelligence of Generalites to argue coherently and maturely about any topic that very few threads are "doomed from the beginning".

Oh ye of little faith, you just got crossed off my Christmas list.That's okay, i've got enough coal to last me for ... erm, that's awkwardly appropriate. :)


The mods place so much reliance on the ingenuity and intelligence of Generalites to argue coherently and maturely about any topic that very few threads are "doomed from the beginning".They have THAT much faith? :eek:
Really, you have me thrown for a loop here.

Oh well.
So is it tactless, for arguments' sake, to insist on people showing a little evidence to support their claims, or is that not acting in good faith of argument procedure?

EDIT : Actually ... there's been mention here about something i have a query about - if it weren't a case of a known (reputed, at least) troller posting the thread in the first place, would that be significant difference consideration for the nature of discourse here?
BTW - that's what i was angling at by intimating that the thread may have already been doomed anyway.

To clarify - do the mods see any difference in the natures of threads that are deliberately confrontational, of confrontational nature, by confrontational entities .... as compared to innocuous ones? As in, do you see the inevitability of the "falling into trollholes" situation?
Other than, of course, breach of forum rules?

(1) I have been known to exaggerate slightly, on rare occasions.

(2) Tact has nothing to do with it. Evidence is good. Argument is superb. Logic is fantastic. Asking for them politely is admirable. You're-a-troll-no-you're-a-troll remains schoolyard stuff.

Now, don't let me keep you from Al Gore. *exits*

EDIT: Dammit, that's sneaky, editing in a real query. No, I don't see the inevitability of falling into trollholes. If a thread looks like trolling, deny the troll the pleasure of answering it. Post about it in Moderation so it can be closed/deleted/the troll warned.

I don't see the topic of this thread as trolling. If it had been aimed at other posters, it would have been flaming. But in the context -- public figure makes statement, OP disagrees -- it's no worse and no better than many another that has generated interesting exchanges.

Global Warming is just another media hoax!





Global Climate change on the other hand.. Isn't that kinda real?

I understand your viewpoint, but I have always tried to deal politely with everyone. Furthermore, I do not want lurkers to actually consider his viewpoints valid if he does not accurately back them up and if he ignores my (second, more confrontational) post then he looks bad to people who haven't made up their minds. I can also hold out the hope that whoever I debate will learn something, or perhaps teach me something. Perhaps there is something that FnG knows on the topic that I do not, however unlikely that may be.

He'll respond to weak arguments he can actually challenge, against a strong argument he'll just ignore it. It gets tiresome to see his tripe at the top of the page constantly.

Global warming isn't real here's my proof:

Leftists sux lolololo!!!

Oh yeah, it doesn't exist! lololo!!!

You see all that "evidence" leftists say that verifies the existence of global warming (you know the "rigorous" experiments conducted by "expert" "scientists" repeatedly according to the "scientific" aka "Bolshevik" method) is actually just a scam! The real proof is that it doesn't exist! I mean, how can global warming exist when the real proof says it doesn't. You can't refute the real proof. The real proof refutes every single point of leftist ideology. Science is left-wing biased. Because it has no proof like the real proof of that global warming isn't happening. Because it isn't! How can you claim existence of a non-existent entity?!! My logic pwns your petty "science"!!

Summed up the rightist argument for anyone who doesn't feel like reading 8 pages.

Global warming isn't real here's my proof:

Leftists sux lolololo!!!

Oh yeah, it doesn't exist! lololo!!!

You see all that "evidence" leftists say that verifies the existence of global warming (you know the "rigorous" experiments conducted by "expert" "scientists" repeatedly according to the "scientific" aka "Bolshevik" method) is actually just a scam! The real proof is that it doesn't exist! I mean, how can global warming exist when the real proof says it doesn't. You can't refute the real proof. The real proof refutes every single point of leftist ideology. Science is left-wing biased. Because it has no proof like the real proof of that global warming isn't happening. Because it isn't! How can you claim existence of a non-existent entity?!! My logic pwns your petty "science"!!

Summed up the rightist argument for anyone who doesn't feel like reading 8 pages.

Well that seems fair enough. Gawd, how did I never see it before? How could I have been so stupid? I wanna fellate GWB.

Global warming isn't real here's my proof:

Leftists sux lolololo!!!

Oh yeah, it doesn't exist! lololo!!!

You see all that "evidence" leftists say that verifies the existence of global warming (you know the "rigorous" experiments conducted by "expert" "scientists" repeatedly according to the "scientific" aka "Bolshevik" method) is actually just a scam! The real proof is that it doesn't exist! I mean, how can global warming exist when the real proof says it doesn't. You can't refute the real proof. The real proof refutes every single point of leftist ideology. Science is left-wing biased. Because it has no proof like the real proof of that global warming isn't happening. Because it isn't! How can you claim existence of a non-existent entity?!! My logic pwns your petty "science"!!

Summed up the rightist argument for anyone who doesn't feel like reading 8 pages.
You forgot to use the words "liberals", and "tree hugging hippies", therefore your logic fails. :D

The important thing about this is not that it may not necessarily disprove global warming in any way, but it does show that huge major scientific organisations which are always seen as infallible and trustworthy are actually fallible and not as reliable or trustworthy as the "every ounce of evidence shows climate change is caused by us..." type people say. It shows that just because one group of scientists is supported by the media or government, does not mean they are 100% correct. It also shows the arrogance and fundamentalism of these organisations, since NASA refused to listen and check up on their data for obvious flaws simply because it was the "heretical" scientists who were spotting them.

This is one of those hot topics that i think needs the perspective of age to help deal with. In the 1960s, the planet would be out of food by the year 2000 because population grows exponentially and food production doesnt. Then that panic o-the-year died down. Then in the 70s, scientists all said that we would be out of oil by the year 2000. Then that panic o-the-year went away. Then in the 80s we had global cooling and we were headed for a giant planet freeze. Then the panic o-the-year died away. Then it was holes in the ozone. Then it was El Nino. Now its global warming. Blah blah blah blah. Our history repeats itself and we still havnt learned our lesson. In the immortal words of Douglas Adams, "Dont Panic!"

I am sooo going to turn someone into a frog ...

No, I'm not allowed to. I'm just having a little tanty after reading SEVEN copies of a newcomer's post in this thread.


I'm going to go hide in shame.

Of course, it doesn't help that I still don't see any post. I waited over ten minutes after almost every time I posted it before searching for it and never found it.

Who's paying you to say that?!

WHO DOES NUMBER TWO WORK FOR?

He works for Steve.

Sigh, the old "global cooling" argument comes up again.

Read some time:

Global Cooling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1970s_Awareness)

"Although there was a cooling trend then, it should be realised that climate scientists were perfectly well aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example see reference[5]). However in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports."

"A history of the discovery of global warming states that: While neither scientists nor the public could be sure in the 1970s whether the world was warming or cooling, people were increasingly inclined to believe that global climate was on the move, and in no small way."

Whereas...

"The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[12][13][14] The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only scientific society that rejects the predominant opinion."

And the ozone hole is/was very real: ozone hole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_hole), yet people actually did something about it.

The important thing about this is not that it may not necessarily disprove global warming in any way, but it does show that huge major scientific organisations which are always seen as infallible and trustworthy are actually fallible and not as reliable or trustworthy as the "every ounce of evidence shows climate change is caused by us..." type people say. It shows that just because one group of scientists is supported by the media or government, does not mean they are 100% correct. It also shows the arrogance and fundamentalism of these organisations, since NASA refused to listen and check up on their data for obvious flaws simply because it was the "heretical" scientists who were spotting them.

Was it the skeptics who discovered the flaws, or did NASA discover the flaws themselves? In other words, did they discover the same "flaws"? (no, I didn't bother reading)

Furthermore, obviously scientific groups aren't 100% infallible, nobody's claiming that. However, as a non-climatologist, I'm going to trust actual -- you know -- scientists on this topic over a political pundit whose denial of global warming stems from an anti-environmentalist stance. Furthermore, this one example (I actually didn't even see an actual NASA link DESCRIBING THIS on FnG's list of link to skeptics sites) highlight "arrogance and fundamentalism" and how do YOU know that they were obvious flaws?

I mean, global warming makes sense from a logical point of view. Think:

We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we know greenhouse gases help keep the planet habitable. Without them, Earth would be too cold. Too much of them...and well there's some serious consequences (see: Venus).

We also know that we've been drilling and burning sequestered carbon in the form of fossil fuels. Remember high school? Combusting these compounds usually results in CO2 as a by-product. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere means adding more greenhouse gases...meaning the greenhouse effect will increase.

Now, obviously, that explanation isn't one scientists would use to verify their hypotheses. That's far too simplified. I'm sure there's plenty of other factors that climatologists observe and test and understand. And the consensus among people specialized in this field is that man-made global warming is very real. Who should I trust? The experts in the field or some right-wing or libertarian pundit whose only evidence is "well, they said global cooling so that disproves global warming, yahoo!"

Was it the skeptics who discovered the flaws, or did NASA discover the flaws themselves? In other words, did they discover the same "flaws"? (no, I didn't bother reading)An inconsistency was noticed by Steve McIntyre. He notified NASA GISS, the problem was sorted, and the revised results published, and Steve McIntyre was credited for noticing the error in methodology.Furthermore, obviously scientific groups aren't 100% infallible, nobody's claiming that. However, as a non-climatologist, I'm going to trust actual -- you know -- scientists on this topic over a political pundit whose denial of global warming stems from an anti-environmentalist stance.Thing is, the error was fucking tiny. It doesn't mean anything in the scheme of things. It's like a bunch of idiot children gleefully proclaiming "Aha! That was no ant you ran over with your 15t truck, you lying, stealing commie scumbag. It was a blade of grass! And you even admit it!"

Calling it ridiculous just doesn't do it justice.Furthermore, this one example (I actually didn't even see an actual NASA link on FnG's list of link to skeptics sites) highlight "arrogance and fundamentalism" and how do YOU know that they were obvious flaws?Check NASA GISS yourself. There's nothing secret or mysterious about what's been going on.Who should I trust?The competing, trained professionals. When they agree on something, chances are it's because they don't have a choice. The experts in the field or some right-wing or libertarian pundit whose only evidence is "well, they said global cooling so that disproves global warming, yahoo!"He's a fascist, not a libertarian. The global cooling thing is, like AGW, somewhat more complicated than party political numbskulls want to admit, but very basically it had a lot to do with pollution changes. Flooding the atmosphere with shortlived, highly reflective particles cools the planet quite a bit, and does so very fast. When emissions stop, the problem goes away in a matter of months.

Please note that the link says that these temperatures are from the lower 48 United States, not global. A significant portion of the United States surface area (excluding the area that is most heavily influenced by the changes) cannot serve as an accurate reflection of global temperature. Regional does not equal global.
Iragnia is correct. To quote realclimate.org:
The net effect of the change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000-2006. There were some very minor knock on effects in earlier years due to the GISTEMP adjustments for rural vs. urban trends. In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible (since the US is only a small fraction of the global area).
For those of you unwilling or unable to do the math, we're talking about a global adjustment of 0.008 ºC to the net warming figure, or on the order of 1% of the measured value, for the 2000-2006 data.

9 pages late but I'll say it anyway.

Al Gore getting one fact wrong in his movie=/=Global Warming is all a lie.

That was no ant you ran over with your 15t truck, you lying, stealing commie scumbag. It was a blade of grass! And you even admit it!"

But it wasn't a blade of grass; it wasn't an ant either. These so-called "scientists" mercilessly drove their 15-ton bulldozer over the remaining vestiges of sensibility and reason, utterly pulverizing it beneath the cold, metallic machine. And make no mistake about it -- the evil contraption is powered by the ostracizing of brave, conscientious dissenters and the cruel stifling of opposing opinions.

This thread doeth fail because of the author. Sorry to say it, but it does. If anybody copies and pastes his OP (Well, and edits it a bit) and reposts it in a week, the new thread will go through the roof.

*Snip*

*Pointedly ignores anything anybody who posts something ranting about "lefties" has to say.*

9 pages late but I'll say it anyway.

Al Gore getting one fact wrong in his movie=/=Global Warming is all a lie.

QFT

<Snip>F&G how do you expect people to respond to you? You might as well have said up is down and down is a mailbox in Newcastle.

But it wasn't a blade of grass; it wasn't an ant either. These so-called "scientists" mercilessly drove their 15-ton bulldozer over the remaining vestiges of sensibility and reason, utterly pulverizing it beneath the cold, metallic machine. And make no mistake about it -- the evil contraption is powered by the ostracizing of brave, conscientious dissenters and the cruel stifling of opposing opinions.

I would hire you to write my propaganda :)

I would hire you to write my propaganda :)

Well if we're seeing through it it can't be that good.

The REAL problem with the enviornment is that there is too much oxygen in it. If we could somehow reduce the content of oxygen by as little as 50% even for a relativly short period of time, the environment would be restored to near pristine levels fairly quickly.

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

Global warming isn't real here's my proof:

Leftists sux lolololo!!!

Oh yeah, it doesn't exist! lololo!!!

You see all that "evidence" leftists say that verifies the existence of global warming (you know the "rigorous" experiments conducted by "expert" "scientists" repeatedly according to the "scientific" aka "Bolshevik" method) is actually just a scam! The real proof is that it doesn't exist! I mean, how can global warming exist when the real proof says it doesn't. You can't refute the real proof. The real proof refutes every single point of leftist ideology. Science is left-wing biased. Because it has no proof like the real proof of that global warming isn't happening. Because it isn't! How can you claim existence of a non-existent entity?!! My logic pwns your petty "science"!!

Summed up the rightist argument for anyone who doesn't feel like reading 8 pages.

You are going to be so rich and famous when you win $100,000. Please share your submission with all of us oh wise and brilliant one!

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

No, their more subtle about it than that, they incite violence through lobbying for policy through official processes that would result in said terrorist actions against states. Contras etc..

That's the thing with state-sponsored terrorism, it hides under the guise of legitimacy.

but when you wear your tin-foil hat they can't transmit your thoughts!

Well if we're seeing through it it can't be that good.

It's not supposed to be good, it's supposed to sound impressive :p

...and repeated until you're worn down and can't help but believing it's true :D

And why does people believe that the Global Climate Change issue is a right/left one? :confused:

And why does people believe that the Global Climate Change issue is a right/left one? :confused:

Because some people can't think of proper arguments, so they just blame the ebil leftists/rightists. This leads to rightists/leftists telling them to STFU, and so on.

1.) CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared rays

2.) People are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere

that is the global warming argument

I would hire you to write my propaganda :)Because he proclaims a minor error that has no impact on anything, not even the shit that passes for denialist arguments, is stifling freedom, bravery and... Tinfoil hats everywhere?

Because he proclaims a minor error that has no impact on anything, not even the shit that passes for denialist arguments, is stifling freedom, bravery and... Tinfoil hats everywhere?

Meh, the only thing he has going is stubbornness and excessive verbiage.

Real propaganda has to say more while saying less. It has to hit the reader, not make him drown in a sea of yawning.

I would however, hire him to write satires of HP Lovecraft.

1.) CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared rays

2.) People are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere

that is the global warming argument

No it is not.

Because some people can't think of proper arguments, so they just blame the ebil leftists/rightists. This leads to rightists/leftists telling them to STFU, and so on.
I hate it when people do that!

Another reason why I can't take this thread seriously.

Because he proclaims a minor error that has no impact on anything, not even the shit that passes for denialist arguments, is stifling freedom, bravery and... Tinfoil hats everywhere?
Yup. He does have suce a flare for the dramatic and appealing to emotions with his loaded language ;)

No it is not.

Well technically, when speaking logically, it does make sense.

CO2 allows high frequency light to pass through, however once this light hits the earth, it is transformed into low frequency thermal energy. This energy is then reflected(Not absorbed) by CO2.

Now then, increasing atmospheric CO2 would only increase the amount of energy "trapped" within our atmosphere, and thus would increase the temperature.

Of course, there's more to it than that, but that's the gist.

Ironic, then, that 1921-34 was one of the largest periods of economic depression there's been, huh?

Wait, scrap that, I only read the first page :headbang:

i don't want to get into a whole thing here, but co2 doesn't "reflect" infrared rays like... well lets say a mirror does to visible light,
it absorbs and re-emits them

Depends. If rapid evolution is more than something thought up by drunken biologists at a sci-fi convention, you'd be dead wrong.

Not really, considering that it'd still take around 100 generations.

Damn I was beginning to get all indignant and argumentative then I realised it was F&G :headbang:

I am sure someone has already mentioned this, but the title of the thread
"Al Gore Gored: Global Warming Lies Disproven", doesn't make sense unless he is trying to prove that Gore was right.
Disproving a lie means the lie is false one, a.k.a the lie is actually the truth.

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/



You are going to be so rich and famous when you win $100,000. Please share your submission with all of us oh wise and brilliant one!

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

I take it you think that Hovind's 250,000 dollar challenge is real as well.

1934 was the warmest year on record? Great, it was still only about 70 years ago, on a global scale, that's nothing.


True.4,000,000,000-70=3999999930. Lot more years of not within the last 3/4's of a century. Fact is the temperature is going up. Natural or man contributed. As ABC World News said civilation is used to this temperature. If it gets hotter we can't grow crops. Heres some science: That=bad.

(1) I have been known to exaggerate slightly, on rare occasions.Well, there certainly is a club. :)


(2) Tact has nothing to do with it. Evidence is good. Argument is superb. Logic is fantastic. Asking for them politely is admirable. You're-a-troll-no-you're-a-troll remains schoolyard stuff.Yeah, that's kinda what came up just a little bit ago.

Now, don't let me keep you from Al Gore. *exits*

EDIT: Dammit, that's sneaky, editing in a real query. No, I don't see the inevitability of falling into trollholes. If a thread looks like trolling, deny the troll the pleasure of answering it. Post about it in Moderation so it can be closed/deleted/the troll warned.So, if it *looks* like trolling, but it only does given the posting history of the OP'r ... it's not actually trolling if people continue with the troller, just in a different manner? Cool.
Cases in point:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12959034&postcount=112
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12960550&postcount=147

I don't see the topic of this thread as trolling. If it had been aimed at other posters, it would have been flaming. But in the context -- public figure makes statement, OP disagrees -- it's no worse and no better than many another that has generated interesting exchanges.M'kay. :)
Kinda reminds me of those "Aw geez, not this sh*t again" posters.

In the immortal words of Douglas Adams, "Dont Panic!"

As i've said many many times before, from real experience:
He was funny as a writer, but in real life, he was seriously a prick.


And it's good of you to use him as a reference, since i met him on his AT&T "Great Communicators" Series, and he took advantage of the speaking engagement to talk about ... guess what ... environmental awareness, the short-sightedness of people who are unwilling to engage in due dilligence ABOUT the environment and our impact on it, AND what we can do to help lessen the impacts of corporate-reinforced stupidity and arrogance.

He works for Steve.

Wha ... oh, you're right. o.0
I should've looked harder. My bad.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12959034&postcount=112

9 pages late but I'll say it anyway.

Al Gore getting one fact wrong in his movie=/=Global Warming is all a lie.

Other than that, it's a pretty svelte package, eh?

And why does people believe that the Global Climate Change issue is a right/left one? :confused:

One word: regulation.

The rest screams volumes of itself.

After a conscientious scientists pointed out this error, the revised data indicated that 1934 was the most sweltering year on record.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
Um, dude, these stats are for the U.S.

It turns out that in such places as Delaware, Ohio, there has been a steady cooling trend since the 1940s.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/ushcn/stationoftheweek.jsp
Yeah, but the world is a little larger than Delaware.

Other than that, it's a pretty svelte package, eh?He's no scientist. Blaming him for a couple of scientists treating two different data sets as two similar data sets & thus making a miniscule error, is like blaming the car when you're drunk as fuck and run it into a wall.

He's no scientist. Blaming him for a couple of scientists treating two different data sets as two similar data sets & thus making a miniscule error, is like blaming the car when you're drunk as fuck and run it into a wall.

Yeah, i'm not really new to this particular issue. :)

The REAL problem with the enviornment is that there is too much oxygen in it. If we could somehow reduce the content of oxygen by as little as 50% even for a relativly short period of time, the environment would be restored to near pristine levels fairly quickly.

No, I'm pretty sure that would kill us.

No, I'm pretty sure that would kill us.I rather think that was the point, seeing as we won't behave like sane, responsible adults and all that.

Well technically, when speaking logically, it does make sense.

CO2 allows high frequency light to pass through, however once this light hits the earth, it is transformed into low frequency thermal energy. This energy is then reflected(Not absorbed) by CO2.

Now then, increasing atmospheric CO2 would only increase the amount of energy "trapped" within our atmosphere, and thus would increase the temperature.

Of course, there's more to it than that, but that's the gist.

Are you the one who wrote that somewhat lengthy post describing this in another GW thread? If so, I say you submit it to Mystical Skeptic's site: a cool 100k in no time...Unless, of course, you would say that that site is disingenuous and isn't actually looking for scientific discourse...

No, I'm pretty sure that would kill us.

Yeah - i thought oxygen made me happy!

http://www.foxmovies.com/fightclub/flightcard_big.jpg
:p

I rather think that was the point, seeing as we won't behave like sane, responsible adults and all that.

Then I'm all for it.

Go ahead, put your head into the sand. Soon sand is all you'll find all over the globe, anyway, thanks to people like you.

comments like this make me laugh, and in my opinion they don't help you cause at all.

to compare it to another issue people say things that dont help their cause:

if you don't fight terrorism then you will be killed or converted to Muslim, and there will be no more pork

if you don't fight terrorism then you will be killed or converted to Muslim, and there will be no more pork

Nah.
You'd have to take care of Uncle Ted "The Hulk" Stevens and Don "Kiss My Ear" Young before there will be NO more pork.

Then I'm all for it.Are you really? I'm sure as hell not. If it was really a choice between the biosphere and 6.5billion sentient beings, the sentient beings win every time. Don't matter they're stupid, greedy, bloodyminded and suicidal.

Are you really? I'm sure as hell not. If it was really a choice between the biosphere and 6.5billion sentient beings, the sentient beings win every time. Don't matter they're stupid, greedy, bloodyminded and suicidal.

Eh, I've had a good run.

But it wasn't a blade of grass; it wasn't an ant either. These so-called "scientists" mercilessly drove their 15-ton bulldozer over the remaining vestiges of sensibility and reason, utterly pulverizing it beneath the cold, metallic machine. And make no mistake about it -- the evil contraption is powered by the ostracizing of brave, conscientious dissenters and the cruel stifling of opposing opinions.

And you proclaiming that localized changes in Delaware and Ohio, two very small places in the world, is indicative of the climate of the entire world is so incredibly sensible.

Right.

I'm sticking with the scientists.

Wha ... oh, you're right. o.0
I should've looked harder. My bad.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12959034&postcount=112

Well, whatdaya know?

1934 was the warmest year on record? Great, it was still only about 70 years ago, on a global scale, that's nothing.


This remark carries an implicit assumption that is flawed: That 1934 was the warmest year in history.

The flaw is that temperatures have only been reliably and officially measured for that last, what? hundred years or so? 150, maybe?

The flaw is that temperatures have only been reliably and officially measured for that last, what? hundred years or so? 150, maybe?150. It's also known as the instrumental period. It goes a bit further back than that actually, but lack of coverage, records and standardisation makes earlier data mostly useless.

I recently sat down and watched Gore's rhetoric-ridden propaganda biopic about his life and global warming. Having suffered through the entire movie, including Al's self-pitying narration of the 2000 election, I was shocked to find that one of the most fundamental assertions in the film was false. It turns out that 1998 is not, in fact, the warmest year on record; in fact, the algorithm used to arrive at that conclusion was not only deeply shrouded in secrecy, but also critically flawed. After a conscientious scientists pointed out this error, the revised data indicated that 1934 was the most sweltering year on record.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

In fact, 5 of the 10 hottest years on record occur between 1921 and 1939!

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1868

It turns out that in such places as Delaware, Ohio, there has been a steady cooling trend since the 1940s.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/ushcn/stationoftheweek.jsp

But these are just two mere samples of the hideous untruths which Gore and other spin doctors have uttered. Indeed, I encourage all of you to peruse the following sites in order to disprove the vile "talking points" of the alarmists lest we are driven to adopting such economically constricting measures as were enacted in Europe. Know the facts -- say "no" to alarmism.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp
http://globalwarming.org/

Also, here's an excellent FAQ by a respected organization regarding so-called "global warming."

http://www.marshall.org/subcategory.php?id=9

Hear Hear! Down with the man-made Global Warming bullshit.

150. It's also known as the instrumental period. It goes a bit further back than that actually, but lack of coverage, records and standardisation makes earlier data mostly useless.

Thanks :)