Al Gore Lies About Gloabl Warming Scandal

[top gun]

Re: RAl Gore Lies About Global Warming Scandal

Mr. Sheep - I provided two distinct examples of temperature decreasing over the last 10 years. One was enough, because if global temperatures declined, there needs to be an explanation as to why? Fortunately we have this data now and even if we didn't, it wouldn't mean that man-made Global Warming isn't a Hoax. It is a hoax either way, but the data above makes it easier to prove.

I was awaiting an answer from you Mr. Sheep, but you came up with none!

Exhibit 6: A Convenient Lie (Al Gore)

American schools might be teaching it as fact, but Britain has found problems with it.


Mr. Justice Burton (Britain) said Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, was 'one-sided' and would breach education rules unless accompanied by a warning.

Despite winning praise from the hoaxers Mr Gore's documentary was found to contain 'nine scientific errors' by the judge, not just little old asur.

And guess what, all these errors were in the Hoaxer's favor, so they were not random, but conveniently in the the Snake Oil Salesman's favor!

To be honest, I'm not crazy about this exhibit but I am
interested in another major problem with his movie!

Now Lets explore that one problem in particular:

Red Herring alert.

This is not news at all. Former Vice President Gore from the start said that the intent of the whole Inconvenient Truth story was to point at possible worse case scenarios.

That said there is still a great consensus by the vast VAST majority (say 90+%) of scientists and climate experts that pumping huge amounts of man made CO2 into our atmosphere has multiple detrimental effects long term.

 

[asur]

Just for a little fun and innocent divergence, watch this video below.
It reinforces what we have been learning in this thread!


Then we can get back to business!

 

[MrSheepish]

Re: RAl Gore Lies About Global Warming Scandal

Mr. Sheep - I provided two distinct examples of temperature decreasing over the last 10 years. One was enough, because if global temperatures declined, there needs to be an explanation as to why?

Some days are colder than others, but you don't see me making a big deal about it. The examples you are pointing out are equally irrelevant, for reasons I have explained several times. I am tired of repeating myself, but I will do so one final time, in bold this time in case you miss it again. Global temperature differences over small numbers of years are essentially random: they are dominated by noise. Congratulations, you found two points in time where the noise fluctuated downwards. You ask why? You probably don't want the answer, but I'll tell it to you anyway. The earth radiates away energy into space. The sun sends energy in. The ocean and air near temperature monitoring stations conduct heat in and out unpredictable ways. Cloud cover fluctuates. All of these things contribute noise. That's why you have to look at long term trends.

I was awaiting an answer from you Mr. Sheep, but you came up with none!

If you are interested in debating honestly then let me know and I will return to this topic.

 

[PLC1]

Re: RAl Gore Lies About Global Warming Scandalp

Some days are colder than others, but you don't see me making a big deal about it. The examples you are pointing out are equally irrelevant, for reasons I have explained several times. I am tired of repeating myself, but I will do so one final time, in bold this time in case you miss it again. Global temperature differences over small numbers of years are essentially random: they are dominated by noise. Congratulations, you found two points in time where the noise fluctuated downwards. You ask why? You probably don't want the answer, but I'll tell it to you anyway. The earth radiates away energy into space. The sun sends energy in. The ocean and air near temperature monitoring stations conduct heat in and out unpredictable ways. Cloud cover fluctuates. All of these things contribute noise. That's why you have to look at long term trends.



If you are interested in debating honestly then let me know and I will return to this topic.

But you just keep posting thos old, boring facts and observations. The Climategatists are totally immune to facts, they want something sexy and exciting!

Anyway, it's cold in Denmark, so that proves global cooling is here. It is quite a lot colder than it was a few months ago, in fact, in most of the northern hemisphere.

 

[asur]

Mr Sheep wrote -

The earth radiates away energy into space. The sun sends energy in. The ocean and air near temperature monitoring stations conduct heat in and out unpredictable ways. Cloud cover fluctuates. All of these things contribute noise.

Kudos - you finally posted an answer, which sounds simply ludicrous!

But what about
a long noise as between 1940 to 1970?
Remember we had a huge constant increase of CO2 in those years
due to the industrial revolution and by 1975 Newsweek said we
were entering another ice age!

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Yes, those were scary times back then and then we had
Jimmy Carter to screw things up more!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

This country has too many people who just want the "instant gratification". That is, they don't want to work to get things or work to fix their own problems. They just want them solved. It's something the democrats push as often as they can.

Are you actually saying that our instant gratification culture is limited to Democrats?

 

[chestnut]

I think more than democrats like the instant gratificaiton. I think more republicans / conservatives do not have their votes swayed by the social justice that is spewed from the democratic party everytime there is an eleciton.

 

[Pidgey]

If you take the temperature record all the way back to the Medieval Warm Period or even back to the beginning of the Holocene, we're cooling. Both of those periods were warmer than now. They finally came to the conclusion that our star IS variable, by the way. One of the biggest things that we have only just discovered and have no way of quantifying at this point is the energy that leaves Earth through the magnetic portals at the poles. MASSIVE energy. We kinda' found it by accident but are studying it now. Looks like the "electric universe" folks are going to win the argument in the end. Oh... another thing: we also recently discovered that the occurrences and strength of lightning in storms is DIRECTLY related to the Bartels Rotations of our sun. The sun revolves on its own axis about every 27 days. There's a waxing and waning in lightning strikes around the planet (this one) that is in time with the sun's rotation (coronal holes, that sort of thing). So... ANOTHER DIRECT LINKAGE between spaceweather and Earth's weather!

Normally during this period in the sunspot cycle (rise from minimum), we'd be seeing some stronger El Nino patterns. This one has so far been something of a fizzle, which may be due to the relative weakening in the IMF (Interplanetary Magnetic Field) strength. Also, the strength of the solar wind has been at its lowest since we've been measuring it.

But... for those of you who keep thinking that "Global Warming" MUST be man-made because you've NEVER SEEN WEATHER LIKE THIS IN YOUR LIFE... well... crap: the Medieval Warm Period was several hundred years long as was the Little Ice Age. Betcha' didn't know that the reason FOR the Bubonic Plague (you know... "The Black Death"?) WAS the change FROM the Medieval Warm Period TO the Little Ice Age.

"Huh?"

Yeppers, 'twas the way it were. You see, Yersinia pestis, the bacterial cause of The Bubonic Plague is quite ubiquitous (it's virtually everywhere). BUT... sometimes these things just seem to up and go especially pathogenic. Virulent. Anyone who deals medically with animals and people knows that nothing causes such occurrences more than starvation. A starving group of any species always behaves like an enhanced Petrie dish, allowing coexistent bugs to become far nastier than they normally are. People were starving due to crop failures all around the planet back in those days.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I think more than democrats like the instant gratificaiton. I think more republicans / conservatives do not have their votes swayed by the social justice that is spewed from the democratic party everytime there is an eleciton.

So do you believe that social justice is wrong? Isn't the incessant drive for more money and power one of the syptoms of our instant gratification society?

Personally, I think social justice is a good idea, the enslavement of others, the denial of equal rights, the unwarranted incarceration of innocents, destruction of the air, water, and food of others for monetary gain, and inciting war against others for the financial gain of war industries all are social justice issues. How can we have peace without justice?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If you take the temperature record all the way back to the Medieval Warm Period or even back to the beginning of the Holocene, we're cooling. Both of those periods were warmer than now. They finally came to the conclusion that our star IS variable, by the way. One of the biggest things that we have only just discovered and have no way of quantifying at this point is the energy that leaves Earth through the magnetic portals at the poles. MASSIVE energy. We kinda' found it by accident but are studying it now. Looks like the "electric universe" folks are going to win the argument in the end. Oh... another thing: we also recently discovered that the occurrences and strength of lightning in storms is DIRECTLY related to the Bartels Rotations of our sun. The sun revolves on its own axis about every 27 days. There's a waxing and waning in lightning strikes around the planet (this one) that is in time with the sun's rotation (coronal holes, that sort of thing). So... ANOTHER DIRECT LINKAGE between spaceweather and Earth's weather!

Normally during this period in the sunspot cycle (rise from minimum), we'd be seeing some stronger El Nino patterns. This one has so far been something of a fizzle, which may be due to the relative weakening in the IMF (Interplanetary Magnetic Field) strength. Also, the strength of the solar wind has been at its lowest since we've been measuring it.

But... for those of you who keep thinking that "Global Warming" MUST be man-made because you've NEVER SEEN WEATHER LIKE THIS IN YOUR LIFE... well... crap: the Medieval Warm Period was several hundred years long as was the Little Ice Age. Betcha' didn't know that the reason FOR the Bubonic Plague (you know... "The Black Death"?) WAS the change FROM the Medieval Warm Period TO the Little Ice Age.

Yeppers, 'twas the way it were. You see, Yersinia pestis, the bacterial cause of The Bubonic Plague is quite ubiquitous (it's virtually everywhere). BUT... sometimes these things just seem to up and go especially pathogenic. Virulent. Anyone who deals medically with animals and people knows that nothing causes such occurrences more than starvation. A starving group of any species always behaves like an enhanced Petrie dish, allowing coexistent bugs to become far nastier than they normally are. People were starving due to crop failures all around the planet back in those days.

Pfiesteria Piscicida is another one of the critters that remains innocuous until stimulated and then turns voracious and poisonous. In this case it is manure from pigs, pesticides, and fertilizer runoff that cause it to bloom and become rapacious.

 

[MrSheepish]

Mr Sheep wrote -

Kudos - you finally posted an answer, which sounds simply ludicrous!

But what about
a long noise as between 1940 to 1970?
Remember we had a huge constant increase of CO2 in those years
due to the industrial revolution and by 1975 Newsweek said we
were entering another ice age!

I thought you were being deliberately deceptive, but it now just looks like you aren't following me, so I'm sorry if I snapped at you, it was a long day for me yesterday. But I really don't know how else to explain this, you clearly don't understand this. There is no such thing as "long noise". Noise is the random fluctuations in temperature that make it difficult to see real trends. In the last decade, there may or may not be a trend, but it is impossible to tell because of the random fluctuations (noise) and the short time-frame. You say that my explanation of how the noise develops is ludicrous. Well, try your own explanation then. You can't deny that it is happening. Anyone with eyes can see the noise in the data.

Your second point: Unlike in the '00s, In the several decades around the 1940-1970s there are enough data that it looks like there might be a downward trend emerging from the noise. Certainly there is no distinct upward trend, and it is a valid question why that is the case if global warming is real. People are now pretty sure that the warming halted due to sulphates in the atmosphere that were emitted in large quantities after WWII and blocked the sunlight just like when a volcano erupts. See NASA's explanation of this, especially the fourth figure on this page. When the industrial world cleaned up their act the sulphates dropped (there are now three times less of them in the atmosphere), and things started to warm again, just like before the sulphates were present. This is also why some people are selling books where they point out that this would be an easy way to reverse the warming if it gets out of hand. Just spew some sulphates into the atmosphere and you'll make it colder again.

But all of this is beside the point. There is no apparent trend in temperature over the last decade. There might be something real there, but if so it is lost in the noise.

 

[PLC1]

I thought you were being deliberately deceptive, but it now just looks like you aren't following me, so I'm sorry if I snapped at you, it was a long day for me yesterday. But I really don't know how else to explain this, you clearly don't understand this. There is no such thing as "long noise". Noise is the random fluctuations in temperature that make it difficult to see real trends. In the last decade, there may or may not be a trend, but it is impossible to tell because of the random fluctuations (noise) and the short time-frame. You say that my explanation of how the noise develops is ludicrous. Well, try your own explanation then. You can't deny that it is happening. Anyone with eyes can see the noise in the data.

Your second point: Unlike in the '00s, In the several decades around the 1940-1970s there are enough data that it looks like there might be a downward trend emerging from the noise. Certainly there is no distinct upward trend, and it is a valid question why that is the case if global warming is real. People are now pretty sure that the warming halted due to sulphates in the atmosphere that were emitted in large quantities after WWII and blocked the sunlight just like when a volcano erupts. See NASA's explanation of this, especially the fourth figure on this page. When the industrial world cleaned up their act the sulphates dropped (there are now three times less of them in the atmosphere), and things started to warm again, just like before the sulphates were present. This is also why some people are selling books where they point out that this would be an easy way to reverse the warming if it gets out of hand. Just spew some sulphates into the atmosphere and you'll make it colder again.

But all of this is beside the point. There is no apparent trend in temperature over the last decade. There might be something real there, but if so it is lost in the noise.

Figurative noise as in fluctuations on the graph that resemble sound waves, or real noise created by non scientists arguing over scientific findings?

 

[asur]

Class will resume soon, but today's news can't be ignored and I will enter it
as a new and unexpected Exhibit. It indicates the typical deception that Snake Oil
Al uses:


Dec 16 2009 ( Exhibit 7)

Al Gore’s office issued a formal correction yesterday to a speech he had given earlier in the week.

Mr Gore told the Copenhagen summit meeting that the latest research suggested that the North Pole would be ice-free within five to seven years. The Times revealed that this was not the information provided to Mr Gore’s office by the climatologist Wieslaw Maslowski, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California.

Dr Maslowski said that his projections suggested that the North Pole would be near ice-free, but that some ice would remain beyond 2020. He also denied providing the 75 per cent figure used by Mr Gore. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore’s office,” he said.


My friends, this is not unclear to me. It was not an accident on Gore's part.
It was purposeful deceit!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6959509.ece

Class will be starting shortly:

 

[PLC1]

Class will resume soon, but today's news can't be ignored and I will enter it
as a new and unexpected Exhibit. It indicates the typical deception that Snake Oil
Al uses:


Dec 16 2009 ( Exhibit 7)

Al Gore’s office issued a formal correction yesterday to a speech he had given earlier in the week.

Mr Gore told the Copenhagen summit meeting that the latest research suggested that the North Pole would be ice-free within five to seven years. The Times revealed that this was not the information provided to Mr Gore’s office by the climatologist Wieslaw Maslowski, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California.

Dr Maslowski said that his projections suggested that the North Pole would be near ice-free, but that some ice would remain beyond 2020. He also denied providing the 75 per cent figure used by Mr Gore. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore’s office,” he said.


My friends, this is not unclear to me. It was not an accident on Gore's part.
It was purposeful deceit!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6959509.ece

Class will be starting shortly:

So, Dr. Al Gore, Phd., got the timeline wrong.

Maybe it's time to listen to people who actually do have those initials with their names.

 

[MrSheepish]

Figurative noise as in fluctuations on the graph that resemble sound waves, or real noise created by non scientists arguing over scientific findings?

Maybe the term "noise" is not used this way in everyday language. I am referring to the essentially random fluctuations in temperature from year to year that make it difficult to see trends in the overall temperature. The larger the size of the "noise" fluctuations, the greater the trend must be for you to see it, or the more the data you need to collect (as in, measuring temperatures for more years). I hope what I am saying is clear. I have tried to explain it many times with and without using the word "noise".