Al Gore Lies About Gloabl Warming Scandal

[MrSheepish]

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.

I seriously doubt he (or anyone else here) is on anyone's payroll to do this, but he makes ridiculous claims that he doesn't even try to back up and his responses never address the things you say. I really don't understand why people like that come to sites like this.

 

[dogtowner]

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.



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.

The CRU "scientientists" were found to be colluding to mask the cessation of warming because of this

The basic argument (that is, that greenhouse gases keep the Earth comfortably warm) has never been challenged, and it follows that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere undoubtedly produces a rise in temperature at ground level.

So far the hoaxes are sourced back to the scientists so I'm keeping it all at arm's length.

 

[Sihouette]

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

Then why is the PERMAfrost melting? I told you that arctic temperatures are the only ones that matter. If they're going up, we're goin' down.

It is feared that Siberia's thawing lake region, which comprises 90 percent of the Russian permafrost zone, will release methane into the atmosphere at a rate that will overwhelm human actions to curtail carbon dioxide emissions.

As the permafrost thaws as a result of global warming caused by increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, large quantities of methane are released. When methane gets out it causes more warming in a vicious cycle, and the release of even more methane, and so it goes on. Scientists refer to this as a positive feedback loop.http://www.terranature.org/methaneSiberia.htm

 

[MrSheepish]

The CRU "scientientists" were found to be colluding to mask the cessation of warming because of this

I don't understand what point you are trying to make with this link.

So far the hoaxes are sourced back to the scientists so I'm keeping it all at arm's length.

That is the most valid concern I have heard you express so far. But the e-mails I read only showed some minor examples of academic dishonesty: nothing surprising given what I might expect to see when you sift through more than a decade of e-mails from any large organization. Can you tell me what part of the e-mails makes you worry that this is all a hoax?

 

[MrSheepish]

Then why is the PERMAfrost melting? I told you that arctic temperatures are the only ones that matter. If they're going up, we're goin' down.

When he said that warming has ceased he was basically right (over the last 10 years, at least). You are, of course, also correct to say that there are other serious issues to be concerned with, and 10 years is too short time interval to draw conclusions from. But given how polarized this board appears to be, I think it is important that we establish some simple baseline facts that we can all agree upon and work from there.

 

[Gipper]

When he said that warming has ceased he was basically right (over the last 10 years, at least). You are, of course, also correct to say that there are other serious issues to be concerned with, and 10 years is too short time interval to draw conclusions from. But given how polarized this board appears to be, I think it is important that we establish some simple baseline facts that we can all agree upon and work from there.

Well then if 10 years is too short a time interval, what would you say to this?

The heart of Gore’s message is that the way to prevent the potential catastrophe global warming represents is for each of us to make a personal commitment to bring about lasting change—in our own lives, our communities and the world. According to the science Gore presents so expertly, the world has 10 years or less to turn things around before it is too late. But Gore sees that as a reason for urgency, not despair.
http://environment.about.com/od/aninconvenienttruth/fr/goremovie_2.htm

That is what the inventor of the internet said in........2006.....so, we less than 6 years left before we all die!!!!

THE SKY IS FALLING........the fat, rich, dumb, and happy Albert, the dipsh*t who cried wolf....

Who was it who said and I paraphrase, "Crisis is the tool of tyrants?" It is a very apt description of the MAN CAUSED global warming movement. It is a Marxist/Leninist one world government movement. And, one thing we know from history, Marxists and Leninists NEVER tell the truth.

 

[MrSheepish]

First of all, I agree that Al Gore was somewhat dishonest in his movie, and he sensationalized the danger. I'm not trying in any way to defend him, I'm simply trying to make sure both sides are being at least slightly honest and correct before continuing with the debate.

But his point in this case is a bit different. I am saying that 10 years of data is not enough to establish a trend: it makes understanding climate change (and whether it really will be a long term problem) quite challenging. In this case, Gore is assuming that the globe is warming as a result of human activity (something most scientists would agree with), and he is predicting that it will lead to a catastrophe (which is much more debatable). In that case, the claim that there are only 10 years left to turn things around may well be true. If high CO2 levels can cause catastrophic warming, then another 10 years of pumping large amounts of the gas into the atmosphere under business-as-usual plans as more of the world industrializes may well be too much. This is entirely separate from whether you can gain useful data out of 10 years of observations. See the difference?

 

[Gipper]

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.

Why you called me a troll. Now that is not nice. I am appalled and insulted.

And, I do not receive any compensation from Exxon, not that there is anything wrong with that.

Hey Sihouette is not your screen name misspelled? Shouldn't be spelled Silhouette? Or, am I missing something?

 

[dogtowner]

I don't understand what point you are trying to make with this link.

I quoted what you said did not exist.

That is the most valid concern I have heard you express so far. But the e-mails I read only showed some minor examples of academic dishonesty: nothing surprising given what I might expect to see when you sift through more than a decade of e-mails from any large organization. Can you tell me what part of the e-mails makes you worry that this is all a hoax?

no one ever claimed that these were ALL the emails that there were.

more collusion could have transpired via other media or purged data (they have a bad habit of doing that too).

as scientists, these guys lost credibility by their actions. that you accept it as normal cost you whatever credibility you had.

 

[top gun]

THE SKY IS FALLING........the fat, rich, dumb, and happy Albert, the dipsh*t who cried wolf....

Who was it who said and I paraphrase, "Crisis is the tool of tyrants?" It is a very apt description of the MAN CAUSED global warming movement. It is a Marxist/Leninist one world government movement. And, one thing we know from history, Marxists and Leninists NEVER tell the truth.

Boy you guys REALLY love pollution.

You should change your name from the Obstructionist Party to the Obstructionist Pollution Party... the OPP!

Last time I checked pollution didn't have a political ideology. Let me guess here's your tag line...

You'll get this raw sewage when you pry it from my cold dead hands... or... You'll get this smog when you pry it from my protective face mask... or... You'll get me to do something about this polar ice cap melting when you gurgle gurgle gurgle.

 

[Gipper]

Yeah. I love pollution. I drink it up every day man. It is really tasty.

I have got to figure out a way to make money off of people like you. Man could I get rich. It would like shooting fish in a barrel or taking candy from a baby.

Ops, Algore beat me to it. Ah shucks....

 

[Sihouette]

Somehow I think you'll get over the insult Gipper. Call it a feeling..

 

[groupthink]

page 24? im not going to read 24 pages of wisecracks and insults...

global warming is a hoax. where is the debate?

 

[Sihouette]

The debate, oh poster of only 4 posts, is in the picture of houses sliding from PERMAfrost melting.

Discuss..

 

[groupthink]

The debate, oh poster of only 4 posts, is in the picture of houses sliding from PERMAfrost melting.

Discuss..

so we are debating a picture of houses sliding from permafrost melting?