Al Gore Lies About Gloabl Warming Scandal

[MrSheepish]

we have a colder northern hemisphere, got another one for that ?

I second PLC's question. When you say colder, what exactly do you mean?

 

[dogtowner]

I second PLC's question. When you say colder, what exactly do you mean?

The deep freeze thats blanketing the northern hemisphere so far this fall and winter.

 

[dogtowner]

Colder than what?

Right off hand, I'd say that the recent cooling of the Northern Hemisphere is most likely due to a phenomenon known in scientific circles as "winter."

its a particularly bad winter thus far

 

[Sihouette]

And to be expected as the warmer-than-normal polar regions suck heat from other places to convert ice into water as it melts.

If you understand the physical properties of the water molecule, you will understand global warming, grasshopper..

The only temps to really pay close attention to are those in the artic region. Melting permafrost is a big red flag.

 

[MrSheepish]

its a particularly bad winter thus far

It doesn't matter how much data you point to demonstrating that temperatures have gotten higher in every part of the world over the last 30/60/100 years. The reply is always "we're experiencing cold weather over here, right now!".

This argument is absolutely wrong, but I don't know how else to explain it. I've tried to explain the physics: "natural variability happens and is not well understood, so you can't look at temperature changes over small time scales because they are essentially random, especially if you are talking about a specific region and not the world as a whole". I've tried pointing to the data: "look at the fluctuations from year to year. It's obvious that any conclusions you can draw from small time intervals are dominated by random 'noise'". And I've tried analogies to show how ridiculous this point of view is: "Obviously immigration is a hoax because there were no Mexicans in my neighborhood this morning".

But my explanations are always ignored or not understood. The response is always "there can't be global warming because the weather is cold right now". I'm out of ideas. It feels like I'm arguing with a broken record.

So let me try one last argument. This stuff is complicated, and you are clearly confused about it. This isn't a subject like abortion, gay rights, or the death penalty where everyone can easily understand the issues and express a valid opinion based on their own values. If you want to argue the science you have to take time to understand the data. You're much better off asking questions and arguing the science once you have a better understanding of it.

Otherwise it's a waste of time for us to be here.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Mr.Sheepish said: But my explanations are always ignored or not understood. The response is always "there can't be global warming because the weather is cold right now". I'm out of ideas. It feels like I'm arguing with a broken record.

Now you are beginning to comprehend the mind-set of the "IT AIN'T GLOBAL WARMING...look at what the hell is going on right cher in my backyard"

They are incapable of thinking GLOBALLY so they don't...if it ain't happen'n right cher, right now in my back yard...it ain't REAL

So they latch onto any and all ignorant points of view {regardless of how incorrect/erroneous} and just keep repeating the MANTRA "IT AIN'T HAPPEN'N and here's my proof...someone said it was a lie"...

PSSST...some of those 'TIN FOIL MAD HATTER'S' don't believe that we landed on the moon either...completely inconceivable that that ever took place so maybe it's best to allow them their COMFORT ZONE, if you know what I mean

 

[dogtowner]

It doesn't matter how much data you point to demonstrating that temperatures have gotten higher in every part of the world over the last 30/60/100 years. The reply is always "we're experiencing cold weather over here, right now!".

This argument is absolutely wrong, but I don't know how else to explain it. I've tried to explain the physics: "natural variability happens and is not well understood, so you can't look at temperature changes over small time scales because they are essentially random, especially if you are talking about a specific region and not the world as a whole". I've tried pointing to the data: "look at the fluctuations from year to year. It's obvious that any conclusions you can draw from small time intervals are dominated by random 'noise'". And I've tried analogies to show how ridiculous this point of view is: "Obviously immigration is a hoax because there were no Mexicans in my neighborhood this morning".

But my explanations are always ignored or not understood. The response is always "there can't be global warming because the weather is cold right now". I'm out of ideas. It feels like I'm arguing with a broken record.

So let me try one last argument. This stuff is complicated, and you are clearly confused about it. This isn't a subject like abortion, gay rights, or the death penalty where everyone can easily understand the issues and express a valid opinion based on their own values. If you want to argue the science you have to take time to understand the data. You're much better off asking questions and arguing the science once you have a better understanding of it.

Otherwise it's a waste of time for us to be here.

These guys confused too ?

 

[Gipper]

but...but...but....Al Gore said the debate is over...man caused global warming is a fact. Only flat earthers do not believe.

How can that be when so many scientists dispute the hoax...ops I mean facts.

Yet the warmers continue to believe...how can this be?

Many Libs don't believe in God, but they do believe in a hoax.

 

[Sihouette]

Say hi for me to your coworkers at Exxon "Gipper"!

 

[PLC1]

its a particularly bad winter thus far

In some places, yes it is. Here, we're not having a particularly cold winter at all. The High Sierra, in fact, looks more like spring than mid January, much to the chagrin of skiers and farmers alike.

Did you read the links I posted about thermohaline circulation?

 

[MrSheepish]

These guys confused too ?

Now you are changing the subject. Some of these scientists are predicting less warming than others, but unlike you they are a) still saying that humans are causing longterm warming, and b) they have reasons for their predictions that aren't just "it's a cold winter so global warming must be a hoax".

Seriously, one of the flagship scientists presented in this article is Prof. Tosnis. Here's how he describes his work in his own words, not filtered through the writing of a reporter with an agenda:

What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf. Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here.

So in conclusion you still seem to be confused, and so is the reporter (to a lesser extent). The people who are not confused (at least not about the distinction between weather and climate) are the scientists, including this one that this reporter is interviewing.

 

[Sihouette]

Mr. Sheepish, I think you were right when you said that Gipper was a troll. That was the point of my last post. And the guy isn't going to go off payroll in order to agree that you have a point..lol..


They do this you know. They have armies of trolls that post at websites like these who do nothing but dispense propaganda. It's part of business nowadays. And not a little part either. Much cheaper than advertising if you think about it.

 

[dogtowner]

Now you are changing the subject. Some of these scientists are predicting less warming than others, but unlike you they are a) still saying that humans are causing longterm warming, and b) they have reasons for their predictions that aren't just "it's a cold winter so global warming must be a hoax".

Seriously, one of the flagship scientists presented in this article is Prof. Tosnis. Here's how he describes his work in his own words, not filtered through the writing of a reporter with an agenda:



So in conclusion you still seem to be confused, and so is the reporter (to a lesser extent). The people who are not confused (at least not about the distinction between weather and climate) are the scientists, including this one that this reporter is interviewing.

The most interesting part of the article is that it admits that warming ceased and has even turned a mite colder. Something the warmers have been dentying. Mainly this puts to rest the maxim that temps WILL increase as CO2 does.

It woudl be helpful if "the scientists" just admitted that there is far more that they do not understand than what they do.

 

[dogtowner]

Mr. Sheepish, I think you were right when you said that Gipper was a troll. That was the point of my last post. And the guy isn't going to go off payroll in order to agree that you have a point..lol..


They do this you know. They have armies of trolls that post at websites like these who do nothing but dispense propaganda. It's part of business nowadays. And not a little part either. Much cheaper than advertising if you think about it.

do they now ?!?!

link or opinion ? either is fine.

 

[MrSheepish]

The most interesting part of the article is that it admits that warming ceased and has even turned a mite colder.

Completely different from the point you were originally trying to make with it, but I'll go with it. It became slightly colder in the 1940s-1970s. The warming appears to have stopped in the 2000s, but it has not become colder in any statistically significant way.

Something the warmers have been dentying. Mainly this puts to rest the maxim that temps WILL increase as CO2 does.

Who are the "warmers"? I have not seen any scientists denying that the global temperatures have been about constant over the last 10 years. And no scientist will ever tell you that temperatures can't go down on the short term. There is no such maxim.

As I said, when you are confused, please ask questions. Stop accusing people of lies and hoaxes until you have have a better understanding of the issues because you have clearly been misinformed about lots of things.