659 replies to this topic

[Zenob]

And there it is right on Q. Show them to be full of crap with actual evidence and their thin veneer of scientific curiosity goes out the window and they start blaming everything on conspiracies(complete with devil pictures this time). Yes, I'm sure THOUSANDS(I believe the IPCC represents about 2500 of them) of climate scientists are all involved in an elaborate conspiracy to deceive everyone else on the planet. Just like how all the biologists are conspiring to convince people of evolution, the geologists are conspiring to trick people into thinking the earth is really old and all the travel agents have convinced everybody that the earth is in fact a sphere instead of flat. lol

See? This is why the right wing was sent to the wood shed last Tuesday. With them ideology trumps EVERYTHING, be it politics, economics, science, etc and reality be damned.

[RighteousReason]

As for the Global Warming, a few things can be agreed upon by all scientists; the ocean water temperatures are rising, the polar icecaps are disappearing, the weather is becoming more sporadic and extreme, and there is a global rise in CO2.

The polar icecaps are not disppearing. The Anatartic ice cap has been growing tremendously. The glaciers in Greenland and Alaska have been growing as well.

It is insane to try to reverse perfectly natural planetary climactic change by annihilating our global economy. Even if the most extreme alarmist claims turned out to be right, we should be rushing to create terrafoming nanotechnology, not completey pointlessly sacrificing the use of anything that produces carbon.

[sthira]

There are geographic and oceanographic differences between the northern and southern icecaps. The ocean in the north is virtually landlocked while in the south there is an open sea. So in the north, there is a buildup of thick, long-lasting, multiyear ice in the Arctic Ocean. In the south, by contrast, Antarctica's sea ice is mostly thin and seasonal. In winter, Antarctic sea ice covers a large area. By the end of summer, it shrinks to one-sixth of its winter extent. These wide swings make it difficult to tease out long-term trends in ice cover there.

As far as the glaciers in Greenland and Alaska growing, I've only seen evidence to the contrary.

[suspire]

As for the Global Warming, a few things can be agreed upon by all scientists; the ocean water temperatures are rising, the polar icecaps are disappearing, the weather is becoming more sporadic and extreme, and there is a global rise in CO2.

The polar icecaps are not disppearing. The Anatartic ice cap has been growing tremendously. The glaciers in Greenland and Alaska have been growing as well.

It is insane to try to reverse perfectly natural planetary climactic change by annihilating our global economy. Even if the most extreme alarmist claims turned out to be right, we should be rushing to create terrafoming nanotechnology, not completey pointlessly sacrificing the use of anything that produces carbon.

If you could provide articles that sustain this argument, that aren't taken from Michael Savage's website but are reported by more independent and reputable sources, we would all appreciate it.

Beyond global warming, are you not concerned about health/pollution issues involved with carbon emissions? Or the species die-off that carbon emissions may be causing (and may have unintended consequences on us)? Do you also not see the possibility of massive global economic growth, spawning various new industries and varied technologies, while simultaneously cutting off dependence on enemies of the U.S. (Middle Eastern countries, Russia, certain South American countries), by investing heavily and developing alternate fuel sources? It seems a lot more likely we'd reach these goals before we created terraforming nanotechnology that would be applicable in short order--plus, alternate fuel sources would cover much of the other associated health risks

Edited by suspire, 10 November 2008 - 12:53 AM.

[Zenob]

The polar icecaps are not disppearing. The Anatartic ice cap has been growing tremendously. The glaciers in Greenland and Alaska have been growing as well.

Bullshit. Climate change models predicted that increases in temperature would cause an increase in precipitation which is what you see here. You get an increased snowfall in the interior but it is not enough to offset the amount of melting at the exterior. Especially when you factor in the effects of the increased run off on the glaciers. It "lubricates" them so that they basically slide off into the ocean faster. Not that it'll do any damn good but I'll attach two more pics that show just how much melting we have had in the last 30+years.

It is insane to try to reverse perfectly natural planetary climactic change by annihilating our global economy. Even if the most extreme alarmist claims turned out to be right, we should be rushing to create terrafoming nanotechnology, not completey pointlessly sacrificing the use of anything that produces carbon.

Again, bullshit. For one thing the scientific consensus is that global warming is man made so you can stow the "natural planetary climatic change" nonsense(look at that chart I posted previously, which one of those lines matched the rising temperature trend?). As for "wrecking our economy" I got news for you and the other right wingers. You can either deal with it now, or you can deal with it later. And dealing with it later is going to make dealing with it now look like a pleasant day in the park by comparison.


Glaciers melt 'at fastest rate in past 5,000 years'
http://www.guardian.....climatechange1

West Antarctic Glaciers Melting At 20 Times Former Rate, Rock Analysis Shows
http://www.scienceda...80229075228.htm

World's glaciers melting at record rate
http://www.un.org/ap...sp?NewsID=25995


Reality, the right wingers natural enemy.

Attached Files

•  melt2005and1992.5inch.jpg   393.57KB   0 downloads
•  meltExtent2005.jpg   86.52KB   0 downloads

Edited by Zenob, 10 November 2008 - 01:42 AM.

[brokenportal]

Im reading a little that Al Gores movie is wrong here, and Im seeing indications that Al Gores movie was right here. I watched it and his graph of ups and downs with an ever increasing extreme upward trend now like never seen before, using different measurments seemed sound to me. Was it? Was that movie accurate or not? Im a bit confused now.

[RighteousReason]

As for the Global Warming, a few things can be agreed upon by all scientists; the ocean water temperatures are rising, the polar icecaps are disappearing, the weather is becoming more sporadic and extreme, and there is a global rise in CO2.

The polar icecaps are not disppearing. The Anatartic ice cap has been growing tremendously. The glaciers in Greenland and Alaska have been growing as well.

It is insane to try to reverse perfectly natural planetary climactic change by annihilating our global economy. Even if the most extreme alarmist claims turned out to be right, we should be rushing to create terrafoming nanotechnology, not completey pointlessly sacrificing the use of anything that produces carbon.

If you could provide articles that sustain this argument, that aren't taken from Michael Savage's website but are reported by more independent and reputable sources, we would all appreciate it.

Beyond global warming, are you not concerned about health/pollution issues involved with carbon emissions? Or the species die-off that carbon emissions may be causing (and may have unintended consequences on us)? Do you also not see the possibility of massive global economic growth, spawning various new industries and varied technologies, while simultaneously cutting off dependence on enemies of the U.S. (Middle Eastern countries, Russia, certain South American countries), by investing heavily and developing alternate fuel sources? It seems a lot more likely we'd reach these goals before we created terraforming nanotechnology that would be applicable in short order--plus, alternate fuel sources would cover much of the other associated health risks

First of all, I'm not responding to Zenob cause the little boy needs a nappy.

I don't think it has gotten through to you that the stories that Michael Savage and I are linking are totally unaffiliated news stories. Go back and look at them again!

I'm wondering what you mean by health/pollution issues "involved" with carbon emissions. CO2 is not a health issue or a pollutant in any way. Obviously.

I absolutely agree that private investment in alternate fuel sources is a good thing, where such investments are economically sound. Alternative energy is also a national security issue. As such, it is prudent for the government/military to seriously think about that situation, and use money wisely.

HOWEVER

You are missing the point of my statement. Read again:

if the most extreme alarmist claims turned out to be right, we should be rushing to create terrafoming nanotechnology, not completey pointlessly sacrificing the use of anything that produces carbon.

If totally eliminating the burning of fossile fuels is the goal, what exactly is that a solution to? Is that supposed to reverse global warming? If so, how do you know?

It seems very fishy to me that real solutions that directly address the problem are completely unimportant. All we get is BURNING FOSSILE FUELS BAD, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY GOOD (But not nuclear!?). Boortz and others have pointed out the links between the radical environmentalists and the anti-capitalist movement. That explains global warming better than anything else I have heard.

[suspire]

As for the Global Warming, a few things can be agreed upon by all scientists; the ocean water temperatures are rising, the polar icecaps are disappearing, the weather is becoming more sporadic and extreme, and there is a global rise in CO2.

The polar icecaps are not disppearing. The Anatartic ice cap has been growing tremendously. The glaciers in Greenland and Alaska have been growing as well.

It is insane to try to reverse perfectly natural planetary climactic change by annihilating our global economy. Even if the most extreme alarmist claims turned out to be right, we should be rushing to create terrafoming nanotechnology, not completey pointlessly sacrificing the use of anything that produces carbon.

If you could provide articles that sustain this argument, that aren't taken from Michael Savage's website but are reported by more independent and reputable sources, we would all appreciate it.

Beyond global warming, are you not concerned about health/pollution issues involved with carbon emissions? Or the species die-off that carbon emissions may be causing (and may have unintended consequences on us)? Do you also not see the possibility of massive global economic growth, spawning various new industries and varied technologies, while simultaneously cutting off dependence on enemies of the U.S. (Middle Eastern countries, Russia, certain South American countries), by investing heavily and developing alternate fuel sources? It seems a lot more likely we'd reach these goals before we created terraforming nanotechnology that would be applicable in short order--plus, alternate fuel sources would cover much of the other associated health risks

First of all, I'm not responding to Zenob cause the little boy needs a nappy.

I don't think it has gotten through to you that the stories that Michael Savage and I are linking are totally unaffiliated news stories. Go back and look at them again!

I'm wondering what you mean by health/pollution issues "involved" with carbon emissions. CO2 is not a health issue or a pollutant in any way. Obviously.

I absolutely agree that private investment in alternate fuel sources is a good thing, where such investments are economically sound. Alternative energy is also a national security issue. As such, it is prudent for the government/military to seriously think about that situation, and use money wisely.

HOWEVER

You are missing the point of my statement. Read again:

if the most extreme alarmist claims turned out to be right, we should be rushing to create terrafoming nanotechnology, not completey pointlessly sacrificing the use of anything that produces carbon.

If totally eliminating the burning of fossile fuels is the goal, what exactly is that a solution to? Is that supposed to reverse global warming? If so, how do you know?

It seems very fishy to me that real solutions that directly address the problem are completely unimportant. All we get is BURNING FOSSILE FUELS BAD, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY GOOD (But not nuclear!?). Boortz and others have pointed out the links between the radical environmentalists and the anti-capitalist movement. That explains global warming better than anything else I have heard.

If you could refer me to the links, I'd appreciate it, or repost the links, that would be great. Every news source I've seen or read has listed the opposite of what you are saying. I did just go over the thread again, but I missed any mention of any other link, except to Michael Savage's webpage and I refuse to give his site traffic due my serious objections on his tactics and behavior.

As for carbon emissions, that was my mistake; I should responded appropriately to your own initial statement and said "fossil fuels". If you'll do a simple Google search for "fossil fuels health", you'll get a long list of websites that discuss the topic in length. This is independent, in most cases, of the health issues that global warming would create.

As for cutting out fossil fuels, it would remove a large percentage of human civilization's contribution to greenhouse gases. This would slow down, perhaps stop entirely our march towards an increase in temperature beyond what would support human life. Whether it would reverse the trend or not, I am unsure. I believe I've read that it will stabilize the temperature, prevent further increases, before returning to pre-industrial age temperatures, but don't quote me on that since I'm reciting from memory rather than looking up specific articles. I'll leave that to others, if they'd like to respond.

That said, I've yet to read a solid argument as to why it makes more sense to continue with fossil fuels--the arguments on negative health implications still remain, as does national security interests--even if you are unwilling to accept global warming. Additionally, traditionally new technologies in unrelated fields often come out of cutting edge research: various new tech for the civilian sector has come out of military research and NASA, for instance. Who knows what useful new tech will come out of alternate energy research. And oil companies can use their resources to shift into the emerging fields of alternate energy, or they can fold--capitalism demands a company adapt or collapse. We would become a communist nation if we were to simply prop up antiquated technology and businesses for sake of a particular company or industry and American industry has been ruthless, time and again, in plowing down the old for the new. Where's the typewriter these days?

So why do we want to cling to fossil fuels again? How does it help the United States? I mean, when you think about it--Russia(not to mention Venezuela's notions of grandeur) became even more powerful, and more of a player on the global theater--when oil prices rose. At the same time, the average American family and many American industries, such as the airline industry, were hurt. So why is fossil fuels good for the United States, again? Why would any true American patriot support our continued use of fossil fuels?

Edited by suspire, 10 November 2008 - 03:27 AM.

[niner]

Biknut, given the noise in the data, you can't draw any conclusions from a 4 year sample. You need to look over a couple decades. A dip over 4 years is just noise. That is purely a mathematical issue; it doesn't matter what the data source is, or what our politics are.

Ok so if the trend line keeps dropping for the next 20 years then will you agree with me, and if It turns out i'm right will you become a Republican?

Yes biknut, I will. Check in with me in 2028, if we both live that long, bro. In fact, if we make it that far, I'll buy you a beer.

[niner]

Completely aside from any issues of AGW, coal sucks. The reason it sucks is that it is horrible for human (and other animal) health. Some of you have had your fillings removed because of concerns about mercury, right? Do you know how much mercury you're consuming because of coal burning? It's one of the world's major sources of Hg. Some of you don't like nukes because of concerns about radiation leaks. Coal is a huge emitter of radioactive material. But these are not the worst offenders; the real problem is nanoparticulates. These are literally killing people by the thousands. If the particulate pollution due to coal burning were stopped, we would see tens of thousands of excess deaths prevented per year. The monetary cost of this is huge, and it's paid for by all of us, when it should really be factored into the low cost of coal. If this externality were factored in, coal wouldn't be cheap anymore, and the current rush to wind energy would become a stampede. I think that the claim that dealing with global warming would destroy our economy is rubbish. Reaping the benefits of clean air is worth billions and would help to pay for new energy sources, and new energy technology would create jobs and economic development. What are coal-derived particulates doing to your personal chances of living longer than three score and ten?

[Zenob]

Here are two more relevant articles. I've actually been worried about the peat bogs for a while. I'm afraid we are going to hit a tipping point and create a cascade of processes that will feed on one another(less ice, less energy reflected out, more absorbed by ocean, less carbon absorbed by ocean, other former carbon sinks warming up and coughing up carbon instead of absorbing it, etc). If all the carbon in the peat bogs was released it would be enough to double what is in the atmosphere right now.

Billions of tons of carbon sequestered in the world's peat bogs could be released into the atmosphere in the coming decades as a result of global warming, according to a new analysis of the interplay between peat bogs, water tables, and climate change.
http://www.scienceda...81106122249.htm

And this one further exposes the wingnuts folly in trying to say that the glaciers are somehow magically getting bigger when every observable fact points to the exact opposite.

A NASA-led research team has used satellite data to make the most precise measurements to date of changes in the mass of mountain glaciers in the Gulf of Alaska, a region expected to be a significant contributor to global sea level rise over the next 50-100 years
http://www.scienceda...81106122254.htm

I guess the wingnuts can include NASA in the conspiracy along with the IPCC now.

Reality, it's the wingnuts natural enemy.

[JLL]

Im reading a little that Al Gores movie is wrong here, and Im seeing indications that Al Gores movie was right here. I watched it and his graph of ups and downs with an ever increasing extreme upward trend now like never seen before, using different measurments seemed sound to me. Was it? Was that movie accurate or not? Im a bit confused now.

http://scienceandpub...goreerrors.html

[Lazarus Long]

I once started a topic about the science of climate change as distinguished from the politics because it seems that no matter how much I try and have an objective discussion about the science, it becomes politicized faster than the results can be gathered.

There are no innocent parties on this matter but I should add that regardless of where people once stood or still stand, on the debate data has been coming in and it really does overwhelming support two critical aspects that those seeking to deny the reality of global warming refuse to address, first it is happening.

Yes even Bush now acknowledges the reality of "climate change" and we have moved from a debate over it being a reality to how much, how fast, and what we can realistically do or shouldn't do.

And second the debate has evolved. It is now how much if any, is caused by humans.

Again the data keeps coming in and the denial group asserts that it is biased because only those with a pre-established desire to prove the result get the funding. That premise is essentially false because there are many groups that are funded by some pretty deep pockets on both sides of the debate. When the data shifts against them the group in denial of climate change starting shifting faster than desert sands and ice floes, switching arguments like a strobe.

No we aren't responsible, yes it is occurring but it is natural, its the sun and we can't do anything about it, no it isn't happening, but it is already reversing and we don't have to do anything, no it isn't reversing but the cost is too much, DAMN ITS UNAMERICAN AND NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE AMERICAN DREAM YOU TRAITORS TO CAPITALISM, hell you are an atheist believer in Satan and its God's plan anyway doncha know?

Did I forget to mention it's God's Plan anyway so we should all just pray for a solution?

Oh yeah it''s just a secret plan to share the wealth by those enviro-terrorist-socialist-communist-hateful, anti-industrialist, gay-pagans that work for the AntiChrist and are plotting a world government and the end of the US.

As the world IS getting warming (at least for the moment) I suggest everyone chill out.

Yes it is getting warming. The evidence is pretty overwhelming and it is still coming in everyday. For every spurious result there are 100 supporting this conclusion and often when those contrary models are more closely examined they are found wanting for methodology or inconsistent results. That is not to say that there is no bad science on the other side too but that is why in science there is so much effort on replicating results.

For example the sun has been ruled out by multiple studies recently as the PRIMARY cause of global warming, and yes the Antarctic is melting too.

http://www.sciam.com...-climate-change
October 31, 2008
Warmer Antarctica Shows Climate Changing on Every Continent
It's official: The South Pole is also succumbing to human-induced climate change

By David Biello
Humanity's impact on climate has been detected on every continent except Antarctica, or so said the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in February 2007. No longer: scientists, comparing decades of records from 17 Antarctic weather stations with computer simulations of Earth's climate, found that human-induced global warming has been heating up the continent that is home to the South Pole, as well.

"We have detected the human fingerprint in both the Arctic and Antarctic region[s]," says Peter Stott, a climate modeler at the U.K. Met (meteorological) Office's Hadley Center, and co-author of the study published in the journal Nature Geoscience.

The researchers compared 100 years of weather records from the Arctic and 50-plus years of those kept on Antarctica with the results of four computer models. Their findings: natural influences such as changes in the amount of sunlight or volcanic eruptions did not explain the warming trends, but the results matched when increasing levels of greenhouse gas emissions were added to the mix.

In the past few decades, average Arctic temperatures have warmed roughly 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius); average temperatures in Antarctica have warmed slightly less than 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius).

Lead study author Nathan Gillett, a climatologist at Environment Canada, the government ministry charged with Canadian environmental protection and issues, notes that the collapse of the Larsen B and Wilkins ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula, which has warmed more than any other part of the entire world, has already been linked to global warming.

As if the new finding is not disturbing enough, researchers may have underestimated the temperature change because they gave equal weight to readings from the cold continental interior—where another man-made problem, the ozone hole, has contributed to cooling in the spring and summer—and coastal regions, where warming is more pronounced. (excerpt)

OK I know Scientific American is really a secret socialist society of scientists scheming to dominate the world and make Darwin the new messiah. Wasn't that a plot on South Park?

We all know South Park is the new voice of reason in this matter.

And sure I know we can't trust all those commie Canadians and their damn universal health care, who the hell are they to treat all their citizens equally and give each and everyone of them a *right* to health care but even so here is some of the Canadian news. Doncha know, they can see the North Pole right across the melting ice shelf.

Researchers tie warming poles to human activity
Margaret Munro , Canwest News Service
Published: Thursday, October 30, 2008

An international team says it has proven humans are driving up temperatures in both the Arctic and Antarctic.

The team, led by Environment Canada climatologist Nathan Gillett, says greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere by cars, factories and human activities are a key factor fuelling the change.

"Our results demonstrate that human activities have already caused significant warming in both polar regions, with likely impacts on polar biology, indigenous communities, ice-sheet mass balance and global sea level," the researchers reported Thursday in the journal Nature Geoscience.

OMG I didn't notice at first, the source study is in Nature Geoscience, now there is a bunch of politically minded godless atheists with a secret agenda if I ever saw some.

So maybe we can trust these sources, they are Christians and they are scientists.

http://features.csmo...-polar-climate/

Formal human ‘fingerprints’ on polar climate
By Peter N. Spotts

So you heard the Arctic was the only pole percolating? Last year, the UN-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change pegged Antarctica as the only continent on the planet where human influence on climate hasn’t popped up. Now, it appears, human “fingerprints” are finally showing up on climate at the bottom of the world, as well as at the top. That’s the latest word from a team of researchers in the US, Britain, and Japan.

For anyone who has followed changes in the Arctic, never mind changes in more-temperate areas of the world, this polar update is unlikely to come as a big surprise. For a sampler of what’s happening up north, try the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s catalog of changes under way there. But the team also finds a small but statistically significant increase in Antarctica’s average temperatures – although that varies significantly by location on the continent. Even in the Arctic’s case, a region feeling the heat far more dramatically than Antarctica, scientists haven’t crossed the T’s or dotted the I’s by formally linked the changes to increased industrial emission of greenhouse gases – mainly carbon dioxide. More...

To make that kind of tie-in, scientists conduct a climatological CSI effort dubbed an attribution study. Typically, a team gathers real-world temperatures and calculates how much each year’s average was above or below the climatological “normal.” Trends they are interested in appear as extended periods of above- or below-normal temperatures. Then they use one or more climate models to see which combination of factors best approximates real-world trends. The factors include changes to natural influences lying outside the atmosphere, such as variations the sun’s output and explosive volcanic eruptions, which periodically launch climate-cooling aerosols into the stratosphere. Also included: natural and human-induced changes within the climate system, including measured increases in greenhouse gases – mainly carbon dioxide — from industry and deforestation. Scientists conclude that CO2’s growth as an atmospheric gas since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution is the main trigger for the warming that the global climate has experienced. (excerpt)

Oh No We Can't. That there is the Christian Science Monitor. A bunch of Radical Left Wing Liberal Theologists that are really trying to subvert Christianity and bring it into the modern world, Now we can't allow that to happen right?!

Did I mention it's God's Plan anyway so we should all just pray for a solution?

[biknut]

It would be easier to believe if warming was actually happening. Why is it so cold if it's suppost to be so warm? Maybe the only place it's any warmer is at the poles.



http://www.ncdc.noaa...TempRank_pg.gif

Edited by biknut, 10 November 2008 - 02:49 PM.

[Lazarus Long]

No offense Biknut but you cannot have a discussion about global warming (or cooling) and introduce a political map of one country, even if that country is the US. NOAA was showing temperature readings at the ground for regional reporting stations for one year in just the continental US. That is not an objective source of info because it is not comparative to anything nor comprehensive.

You are describing temperature extremes that were, reached not how long they were sustained or the averages. This indicates the problem when data is cherry picked for desired results. There is no conclusion at all possible on such a map. In fact you have not provided enough of a description from NOAA on what they are charting to begin with.

I have tried before to explain that the problem is climate change is that the first thing that will be noticed is *instability* the extremes of instability are subjective and there too many chicken little's crying "the sky is falling" but also too many chanting "don't worry be happy, its all good."

For example there have always been hurricanes and claiming any specific storm is the result of global warming is spurious, but noticing that there have been more storms per year increasing on average over the last few decades and that more of these storms are more violent on average is a valid concern derivative of the model for global warming and confirmed by analysis.

[JLL]

And I don't think anyone is arguing that it hasn't gotten warmer in the last 100 years. The argument is over whether this increase (of less than 1 celsius) is significant or not.

[biknut]

No offense Biknut but you cannot have a discussion about global warming (or cooling) and introduce a political map of one country, even if that country is the US. NOAA was showing temperature readings at the ground for regional reporting stations for one year in just the continental US. That is not an objective source of info because it is not comparative to anything nor comprehensive.

I knew you were going to say that, but right now it's the only map I found. I already posted a graph showing that the entire global temperature average is slightly above, but dropping for the last 4 years in a row. Within 2 or 3 years we'll be below the global average if it even takes that long. When we go negitive what will be the excuse then?

[Zenob]

It would be easier to believe if warming was actually happening. Why is it so cold if it's suppost to be so warm? Maybe the only place it's any warmer is at the poles.

How does one respond to this level of willful ignorance without bashing one's head bloody on the desk?

Do you think that global warming means that we no longer have a seasonal summer and winter? That's right up there with asking "why are their still monkeys" if we evolved.

As for Al Gore's "errors" in his movie, that whole mess stems from a lawsuit by global warming deniers in the UK who were trying to block the movie's release. They failed but the judge threw them a bone and said he found 9 "errors". Problem is the judge didn't understand what he was trying to critique and screwed up. The rest of the "35 errors" are just right wing fantasies. Here is the actual "9 errors" from the UK lawsuit as well as links that refute them in order:

1. Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.

In scene 21 (the film is carved up for teaching purposes into 32 scenes), in one of the most graphic parts of the film Mr Gore says as follows:

"If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, the Low Countries: absolutely devastation. The area around Beijing is home to tens of millions of people. Even worse, in the area around Shanghai, there are 40 million people. Worse still, Calcutta, and to the east Bangladesh, the area covered includes 50 million people. Think of the impact of a couple of hundred thousand refugees when they are displaced by an environmental event and then imagine the impact of a 100 million or more. Here is Manhattan. This is the World Trade Center memorial site. After the horrible events of 9/11 we said never again. This is what would happen to Manhattan. They can measure this precisely, just as scientists could predict precisely how much water would breach the levee in New Orleans."

This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.



2. Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.

In scene 20, Mr Gore states "that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand". There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.



3. Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor".

In scene 17 he says, "One of the ones they are most worried about where they have spent a lot of time studying the problem is the North Atlantic, where the Gulf Stream comes up and meets the cold wind coming off the Arctic over Greenland and evaporates the heat out of the Gulf Stream and the stream is carried over to western Europe by the prevailing winds and the earth's rotation ... they call it the Ocean Conveyor … At the end of the last ice age … that pump shut off and the heat transfer stopped and Europe went back into an ice age for another 900 or 1000 years. Of course that's not going to happen again, because glaciers of North America are not there. Is there any big chunk of ice anywhere near there? Oh yeah pointing at Greenland". According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down.



4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO₂ in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs.

In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO₂ and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts.



5. The snows of Kilimanjaro.

Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Milliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.



6. Lake Chad etc

The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.



7. Hurricane Katrina.

In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.



8. Death of polar bears.

In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through the water looking for ice, Mr Gore says: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before." The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend of regression of pack-ice and/or longer open water continues, but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description.



9. Coral reefs.

In scene 19, Mr Gore says: "Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and other factors are bleaching and they end up like this. All the fish species that depend on the coral reef are also in jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate." The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality, unless corals could adopt or acclimatise, but that separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult.

http://www.realclima...nient-untruths/
http://www.newscient...ient-truth.html

Reality, the natural enemy of the right wing.

[biknut]

Please explain why the global temperature average is dropping instead of rising. Just so we'll know please indicate what year the global temperature average will start rising again (we know it won't be this year).

I'm sure most of you alarmists will say, well 4 years, that's just a coincidence. You have to look at the long term trend. Ok I agree with that, but I say we peaked and now the long term trend is downward here on out. You can say I'm wrong all you want, but as long as the average keeps dropping I don't believe it. Have scientists ever been wrong?

My prediction is this year will end up below .3c above normal.

Edited by biknut, 10 November 2008 - 03:26 PM.

[biknut]

No offense Biknut but you cannot have a discussion about global warming (or cooling) and introduce a political map of one country, even if that country is the US. NOAA was showing temperature readings at the ground for regional reporting stations for one year in just the continental US. That is not an objective source of info because it is not comparative to anything nor comprehensive.

When I think about it aren't you kind of doing the same thing about the poles. Where else is this warming suppose to be happening? Southern hemisphere? I don't think so. North America? Apparently not.

[biknut]

I belong to this denomination of global warming religion. Don't you believe in freedom of religion?



Four scientists: Global Warming Out, Global Cooling In

Alan Lammey, Texas Energy Analyst, Houston

Four scientists, four scenarios, four more or less similar conclusions without actually saying it outright — the global warming trend is done, and a cooling trend is about to kick in. The implication: Future energy price response is likely to be significant.

Late last month, some leading climatologists and meteorologists met in New York at the Energy Business Watch Climate and Hurricane Forum. The theme of the forum strongly suggested that a period of global cooling is about emerge, though possible concerns for a political backlash kept it from being spelled out.

http://wattsupwithth...bal-cooling-in/

[Zenob]

Please explain why the global temperature average is dropping instead of rising. Just so we'll know please indicate what year the global temperature average will start rising again (we know it won't be this year).

I've already explained it to you several times and you just keep ignoring it. Nothing moves in a straight line. It doesn't mean a break of a trend if the temp dips back down some so long as it stays within it's trend lines. Not to mention the climate is extremely complex and not likely to move and behave in a nice orderly fashion, but moving on.

I'm sure most of you alarmists will say, well 4 years, that's just a coincidence. You have to look at the long term trend. Ok I agree with that, but I say we peaked and now the long term trend is downward here on out. You can say I'm wrong all you want, but as long as the average keeps dropping I don't believe it. Have scientists ever been wrong?

No, what I would say is that you simply can't read a chart to save your life. To point that out, I drew trendlines on this chart and circled all the dips on it to prove my point. Right now you are staking your entire belief on a dip. What you keep failing to see through sheer blind faith in your ideology is that each of these dips is higher then the previous one, demonstrating that the trend is fully intact. You can see them on the chart at 1985, 1993, 2000, and 2004. Did any of those dips break the trend? Do you think the dip you are hanging all your hopes on is any different?

My prediction is this year will end up below .3c above normal.

You are incapable of reading a chart and have very little understanding of the actual science involved here. Not to mention you just tossed a number out with out putting any kind of thought into it what so ever. Walk me through how you derived your .3c number. lol

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you better never try trading stocks. You'll get owned.

Reality, the natural enemy of the right wing.

Attached Files

•  Satellite_Temperatures_modified_.PNG   31.43KB   0 downloads

[biknut]

This is all from 08. This is what is cutting edge now. You guys are stuck in the past. Looks like a lot of these links are old, but you can read them here.

http://www.imminst.o...o...16493&st=30


Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age

http://www.dailytech...rticle10630.htm

Sun Makes History: First Spotless Month in a Century

http://www.dailytech...rticle12823.htm

Old Farmers Almanac: Global cooling may be underway

http://www.usatoday....s-almanac_N.htm


Solar wind weakest since beginning of space age

http://www.breitbart...;show_article=1

The Sun Also Sets

http://ibdeditorial....287279412587175

Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age

http://www.nationalp....html?id=332289

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

http://www.dailytech...rticle10866.htm

Russians Brace For The Big Chill

http://www.allheadli...cles/7009739004

Edited by biknut, 10 November 2008 - 04:04 PM.

[Zenob]

Fix your links. None of them work.

Correction, none of them that are long work.

Edited by Zenob, 10 November 2008 - 04:16 PM.

[biknut]

You are incapable of reading a chart and have very little understanding of the actual science involved here. Not to mention you just tossed a number out with out putting any kind of thought into it what so ever. Walk me through how you derived your .3c number. lol

Because so far this year it's .301 and dropping.

http://www.cru.uea.a.../hadcrut3gl.txt

[Zenob]

"Global cooling" has all the crackpots panties in a bunch. Too bad none of them actual understand it or where the term came from. Here is a link to the article that started it all and some REAL info about what it says.

The Nature article ($ub. req'd) that has caused so much angst about the possibility that we are entering a decade of cooling -- "Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector" -- has been widely misreported. I base this in part on direct communication with the lead author.

In fact, with the caveat from the authors that the study should be viewed as preliminary, and should not be used for year-by-year predictions, it is more accurate to say the Nature study is consistent with the following statements:

• The "coming decade" (2010 to 2020) is poised to be the warmest on record, globally.
• The coming decade is poised to see faster temperature rise than any decade since the authors' calculations began in 1960.
• The fast warming would likely begin early in the next decade -- similar to the 2007 prediction by the Hadley Center in Science (see "Climate forecast: hot -- and then very hot").
• The mean North American temperature for the decade from 2005 to 2015 is projected to be slightly warmer than the actual average temperature of the decade from 1993 to 2003.

Link

That article even has a section talking about how various media has totally screwed up their interpretation of the paper in question.

[biknut]

Fix your links. None of them work.

Correction, none of them that are long work.

Sorry , looks like a lot of them are old. They're all posted here. It's easier to start on page 5 and go back. I copied most of these stories.

http://www.imminst.o...o...6493&st=120

[Lazarus Long]

No offense Biknut but you cannot have a discussion about global warming (or cooling) and introduce a political map of one country, even if that country is the US. NOAA was showing temperature readings at the ground for regional reporting stations for one year in just the continental US. That is not an objective source of info because it is not comparative to anything nor comprehensive.

When I think about it aren't you kind of doing the same thing about the poles. Where else is this warming suppose to be happening? Southern hemisphere? I don't think so. North America? Apparently not.

No, because you need to understand the difference between what the poles do, a continent does and a critical zone or ocean does to the mechanics of weather and climate as a whole not about what a political entity like the US means. If you want to address North America that is more reasonable than just the US but no continent represents as critical a dynamic driving climate engine as the poles do.

All the circulation of the atmosphere is both around, as well as to and from the poles. The cold of the poles when combined with the heat of the equator and some critical pivots like the mid Pacific and the Sahara drive a considerable percentage of the weather over the continents and the whole world. Not all temperatures should be weighed the same as important. Polar change is much more important than a local or even most regional readings, like say London, to reference the starting point of this whole thread.

Has anyone bothered to stay current on the denial side of this debate?

Both poles ARE shrinking, the north pole reached almost a record of shrinkage this summer in area of ice cap but more importantly the thickness of the ice cap is approaching an all time low, the South pole has calved off ice shelves the size of Rhode Island and Manhattan this year and glaciers there are retreating too. There is a considerable body of more recent satellite data so I suggest reviewing those instead of out of date links. There is more data coming too.

Yes snow fall is up finally over some critical glaciers but that is because as the atmosphere is warmer it is holding more moisture but the glaciers themselves are melting as fast, if not faster than almost any are growing. This is true for most regardless if you can find an exception anywhere.

[biknut]

No offense Biknut but you cannot have a discussion about global warming (or cooling) and introduce a political map of one country, even if that country is the US. NOAA was showing temperature readings at the ground for regional reporting stations for one year in just the continental US. That is not an objective source of info because it is not comparative to anything nor comprehensive.

When I think about it aren't you kind of doing the same thing about the poles. Where else is this warming suppose to be happening? Southern hemisphere? I don't think so. North America? Apparently not.

No, because you need to understand the difference between what the poles do, a continent does and a critical zone or ocean does to the mechanics of weather and climate as a whole not about what a political entity like the US means. If you want to address North America that is more reasonable than just the US but no continent represents as critical a dynamic driving climate engine as the poles do.

All the circulation of the atmosphere is both around, as well as to and from the poles. The cold of the poles when combined with the heat of the equator and some critical pivots like the mid Pacific and the Sahara drive a considerable percentage of the weather over the continents and the whole world. Not all temperatures should be weighed the same as important. Polar change is much more important than a local or even most regional readings, like say London, to reference the starting point of this whole thread.

Has anyone bothered to stay current on the denial side of this debate?

Both poles ARE shrinking, the north pole reached almost a record of shrinkage this summer in area of ice cap but more importantly the thickness of the ice cap is approaching an all time low, the South pole has calved off ice shelves the size of Rhode Island and Manhattan this year and glaciers there are retreating too. There is a considerable body of more recent satellite data so I suggest reviewing those instead of out of date links. There is more data coming too.

Yes snow fall is up finally over some critical glaciers but that is because as the atmosphere is warmer it is holding more moisture but the glaciers themselves are melting as fast, if not faster than almost any are growing. This is true for most regardless if you can find an exception anywhere.

I totally agree this is what is, and has been happening. I question it is caused by man, and is going to keep happening, that's all. It doesn't matter what any of us think anyway, because none of us are in a position to do much about it. I can't buy into, that every scientist with a contrary view is a "crack pot". They said the same thing about Tesla. The next few years will may reveal the truth.

Personally I have more trust in the solar scientists because they're mainly dealing with what's happening right now instead of what they think is going to happen. Nobody predicted a few years ago the sun would be acting like it is now, except maybe a few Russian scientists. Now scientists are paying a lot more attention.

This is just my opinion.

[Zenob]

I totally agree this is what is, and has been happening. I question it is caused by man, and is going to keep happening, that's all. It doesn't matter what any of us think anyway, because none of us are in a position to do much about it. I can't buy into, that every scientist with a contrary view is a "crack pot". They said the same thing about Tesla. The next few years will may reveal the truth.

You don't seem to understand that their is a coordinated disinformation campaign in full swing right now to try and trick people into thinking that there is no consensus on global warming(when there clearly is). Most of the "skeptics" are well paid for their "views". Hell, a few of them formally worked for the tobacco companies and swore that tobacco was harmless and non-addictive. These people are basically just renting out their PhDs to whoever will cut them a check. I certainly wouldn't compare any of them to Tesla.

Personally I have more trust in the solar scientists because they're mainly dealing with what's happening right now instead of what they think is going to happen. Nobody predicted a few years ago the sun would be acting like it is now, except maybe a few Russian scientists. Now scientists are paying a lot more attention.

So all the present research into climate change doesn't count unless it's solar based?

We know the mechanism behind carbon forcing. We know it increases temperature and we know the levels of carbon are going up. If you think it's solar forcing instead, then by what mechanism is it doing it? Not to mention, how is it doing it when solar activity has been pretty static for 50 years? If it was causing it, there would be a correlation, but you don't see one if you look at the charts.