Quote:

---

It goes without saying that climate realists around the world believe Nobel Laureate Al Gore used false information throughout his schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" in order to generate global warming hysteria.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

It goes without saying that climate realists around the world believe Nobel Laureate Al Gore used false information throughout his schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" in order to generate global warming hysteria.

---

Eh? They do? Or is this yet another entirely confabulated talking point? (RR talked about "his" experience in the war when it was really just a description of a movie he'd made.)


---------------------------------

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, that's our shot. That's a fully computer generated shot. There's nothing real in there.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Did you folks never hear of illustrating a process ?

Next time you watch a science show that illustrates how cosmic rays travel, how earth's magnetic fields form the van Allen radiation belts, how molecules travel in a fluid

REMEMBER TO TELL YOUR STUPID SELVES THAT THERE'S NO SUCH THINGS BECAUSE YOU SAW AN ILLUSTRATION OF THEM ON TV. Those filthy liars ! Liars I tell you !


Ha ha ha ha ha ha wahta' buncha' idiots.

"Global warming - it's not a fact, it just isn't!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Did you folks never hear of illustrating a process ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Yeah Rap, once again you illustrate just how close you are to PN land. Good luck with that.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not a fact, because it isn't ."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
The images you claimed to be 'faked' were blatantly computer generated - you'd have to be a real idiot to think they weren't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
He did ? Really ?

Have either of you buffoons watched 'An Inconvenient Truth' ?



I thought not. The images you claimed to be 'faked' were blatantly computer generated - you'd have to be a real idiot to think they weren't. (Or maybe you need better glasses or better electronics ... Either way, you can solve that little problem by ponying up.) On top of which they were used to illustrate the geography of Antarctica - where the floating ice was, the land ice and the mountains.

Obviously you two don't quite understand the meaning of the word 'illustrate', so I suggest you go look it up.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not a fact, it just isn't ."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA - yeah, whatever you gotta do to keep your little world intact.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not a fact, it's just not."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Was it in saying that people see glaciers calving every day ? That's an indisputable fact. Do you have an issue with him using stock footage to illustrate his points ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
I guess I find it odd that 'people see glaciers calving every day' but those people either have no access to video equipment or the footage would not be compelling enough to support their case.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"sensationalism"

Sensationalism ? You mean showing a very common event is sensationalism ?

Sigh. I can see we're going to have one of those discussions where you pretend to not know english.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
its almost ridiculous how many scientific facts and theories have been reversed or changed or discredited over the years.

---

Quote:

---

science is not necessarily synonymous with fact.

---

Quote:

---

MMGW is only a theory, period. just as evolution is only a theory

---

Quote:

---

CO2 is not a pollutant, its an essential building block of life on earth.

---

Quote:

---

scientists claim that the earth had its highest Carbon concentrations during the cambrian and early eras, when the earth had an mysterious explosion of life, accommodated by a (graciously) tropical climate.

---

Quote:

---

but were talking many of (alleged) millions of years of separation.. so i think we've got time.

---

Quote:

---

last i heard, unless im mistaken, we've only seen less then a degrees difference over the last 100yrs, the peak of the industrial revolution.

---

Quote:

---

thats not a very dramatic increase.

---

Quote:

---

so where is all this hysteria coming from?

---

Quote:

---

what scares me is the building political (re)action to prevent this 'end of the world' scenario that the GW alarmists propagate.

---

Quote:

---

to execute that kind of oversight of the world populace, to minimize their "carbon footprint", it requires a scale of government and authoritarian control beyond what we've seen before. its collectivism out of control, its communism

---

Quote:

---

and thats why ive come to believe that the green movement is being run by NWO globalists. save an alien invasion, its the perfect excuse to control the behavior of everyone on the planet. why stop at limiting carbon footprints?

---

Quote:

---

we need to consider population control and eugenics

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’m going to assume they are using sensationalism to make a point, which is what they would be doing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Finn

No apparently you don't know what sensationalism is. But claiming words mean something other than their actual definition is your game.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You’re not helping yourself any. You’re starting to sound like Citizen - like the only thing your interested in is starting a flame war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Finn

You says it's sensationalism. And refuse to back up your claim. If you're looking for intelligent discussion, don't go looking in the mirror, dude. B/c simply making unsupported ridiculous claims isn't intelligent.

---

Quote:

---

Citizen-
Name one. One. That's all. Name one time where 'science' has done a complete U turn.

---

Quote:

---

No, it's(science)(is) the search for truth.

---

Quote:

---

So's gravity. Do tell us when you start floating off into space old boy. Beyond that, I'm sorry but that's a pretty ignorant thing to say. In science a theory is somewhat different to 'theory' in common usage. What most people mean when they say theory, a scientist would call a hypothesis.

---

Quote:

---

A theory requires supporting data, saying something is 'only' a theory indicates you don't have a clue what you're talking about, in science there's no 'only' about a theory.

---

Quote:

---

Pollutants aren't something 'unnatural' added into the environment. Oxygen is poisonous, but I'd say it's also pretty key to life on Earth. Pollutants are anything at an abnormally high concentration that upset the natural balance. So yeah, abnormal amounts of CO2 upsetting the natural balance would be pollution.

---

Quote:

---

You're point is (beyond an appeal to ridicule I mean)?

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, that's half the point. We don't. The warming is happening at a much faster and unprecedented rate.

---

Quote:

---

The 'peak' of the industrial revolution was actually further back than that. Not that I see the point in talking about it, the we're more polluting now (as a species) than at any other time in our history.

---

Quote:

---

Err, actually it is(a dramatic increase). And it's accelerating, especially in the last few years.

---

Quote:

---

From the fact that a world wide rise of nearly a degree in only a hundred years (a blip in geological time) is actually alarmingly high and fast, and not something to be brushed off as insignificant.

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, damn them! Trying to stop pollution! Those bastards! I love lead in my lungs and arsenic in my water! Unleaded petrol was one of the most evil crimes forced on the world...

---

Quote:

---

Erm, yeah. Communism, for when you're not sure what it really is, but its bad, yeah. Actually I think the stateism your trying to put up as a false dichotomy would be more akin to Fascism than Communism .

---

Quote:

---

Is there anything that isn't part of some NWO conspiracy as far as you're concerned? Seriously.

---

Quote:

---

Didn't they already try eugenics as a part of Christian Capitalism? beyond that, our continued survival as a species probably does depend on population control.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
have we learned anything new in the last 500 years? im curious... it seems science is ever changing and evolving, as we learn new information. there are continuously new discoveries being observed in the universe, which is always changing current beliefs and theories in the field. thats my point. im not a scientist, but i found plenty of now discredited or defunct theories, varying in acceptance, which have been improved or surpassed, just do a search. GW may be no different, in matter of the planet and universe, there is still a lot to be learned

---

Quote:

---

right.. not truth itself. pursuance is not a claim to truth

---

Quote:

---

i know what an hypothesis is, i believe ive made that point to you before about your sacred evolutionary theory

---

Quote:

---

This generally takes the form of "Well, Einstein's relativity is just a theory, not a fact/scientific law." However, such a statement only demonstrates that the speaker is either severely scientifically illiterate or an evil demagog trying to pull a fast one.

---

Quote:

---

hey, tell me exactly how our ancestors managed to crawl out of molten lava?

---

Quote:

---

thpse were some mighty intelligent raw elements to have designed all these awfully complex biological organisms we see today. ive never seen any data to support that..

---

Quote:

---

instead, i see a lot of cherry picking of evidence to fit ones own chosen belief

---

Quote:

---

actually, the natural balance says otherwise.

---

Quote:

---

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22787
recent data shows warmer temperatures precede higher CO2 concentrations. according to this new research, i could presume that we were amidst a warming cycle before humans began burning fuel

---

Quote:

---

A good example can be found in the last Inhofe hearing. There, Bob Carter pointed out that during the past few hundred thousand years, changes in temperature have preceded changes in carbon dioxide. Carter concluded that the relation between carbon dioxide and temperature is unclear.

This is hogwash, of course. While Carter is correct that temperature changes precede CO2 changes, this is well understood and in no way undermines the idea that increasing CO2 will lead to global warming. By presenting a misleading account of this physical phenomenon, Carter is acting to politicize science.

---

Quote:

---

What most scientists think happens is that the orbital variations cause a small initial warming. This small initial warming leads to CO2 being released, which then leads to further warming.

Thus, CO2 indeed lags the initial warming. However, that does not mean it's not playing a crucial role in the warming. In fact, its role in warming is pivotal.

In making the argument that CO2 is causing global warming, I tend not to talk about this long-time-scale correlation. As you can see from this post, while the correlation looks simple, the causality is more complicated than one might initially think. There's a much better argument anyway, which I laid out in my last post. And there are other problems -- e.g., we do not know with great confidence exactly what mechanism causes CO2 rise in response to the slight orbital-caused warming.

In summary, in the parlance of climate scientists, we would say that CO2 was acting as a "feedback" over the time period in the figure above. In the past century, however, humans have taken over the carbon cycle and now dominate the year-to-year atmospheric changes. Thus CO2 has now become a "forcing."

---

Quote:

---

1- high CO2 concentrations resulted in a rich diversity in life, so whats the problem?

---

Quote:

---

ID(i just love to insert it when possible)?

---

Quote:

---

NASA and all the major institutes maintain only a .7 degree surface temperature increase over the last 100 years. what constitutes unprecedented? thats beyond the avg lifespan, its unnoticeable

---

Quote:

---

thats a matter of opinion, but either way, i haven't seen any evidence of dramatic increases over the last few years.

---

Quote:

---

we're only talking a few hundredths of a fraction of a degree over decades.

---

Quote:

---

besides, who's to say what a stable climate is? seriously.. the earth and our universe are beyond our control

---

Quote:

---

insignificant, no.. but just how relevant, yes.

---

Quote:

---

come on now.. thats a different subject completely.

---

Quote:

---

does anyone want a polluted environment?

---

Quote:

---

but we're talking about CO2 and man made global warming, and it hasn't been ruled conclusively, that excessive CO2 is dangerous, or even a pollutant for that matter.

---

Quote:

---

what do you mean specifically? i don't advocate any kind of centralized planning, but looking at these globalist policy initiatives, clearly there are varying degrees of this eco extremism that straddle all the ascending forms of isms

---

Quote:

---

propaganda of this magnitude doesn't fund itself

---

Quote:

---

always taking shots at my religion(actually, individuals and their own personal actions). but im pretty sure God said "be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth".

---

Quote:

---

at least you admit you would take others rights to life and liberty to save your own.. i thought id have to coax that out of you

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by badkarma00:
Al Gore invented Global Warming. And the internet. And pants. And the hanging chad. (note sarcasm)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by badkarma00:
Global Warming is a theory, hunger in America is a FACT

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
One of the issues I have with "man made" global warming is the relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature. It's difficult to see in the graph below, but the data actually shows that CO2 rises lag temperature increase. In other words, it's not CO2 that raises temperature, it's the other way around, an increase in temperature results in a rise in CO2. Ive heard a few scientists try to explain this fact away, but have yet to hear an explanation that makes sense to me.

---

Quote:

---

A good example can be found in the last Inhofe hearing. There, Bob Carter pointed out that during the past few hundred thousand years, changes in temperature have preceded changes in carbon dioxide. Carter concluded that the relation between carbon dioxide and temperature is unclear.

This is hogwash, of course. While Carter is correct that temperature changes precede CO2 changes, this is well understood and in no way undermines the idea that increasing CO2 will lead to global warming. By presenting a misleading account of this physical phenomenon, Carter is acting to politicize science.

---

Quote:

---

What most scientists think happens is that the orbital variations cause a small initial warming. This small initial warming leads to CO2 being released, which then leads to further warming.

Thus, CO2 indeed lags the initial warming. However, that does not mean it's not playing a crucial role in the warming. In fact, its role in warming is pivotal.

In making the argument that CO2 is causing global warming, I tend not to talk about this long-time-scale correlation. As you can see from this post, while the correlation looks simple, the causality is more complicated than one might initially think. There's a much better argument anyway, which I laid out in my last post. And there are other problems -- e.g., we do not know with great confidence exactly what mechanism causes CO2 rise in response to the slight orbital-caused warming.

In summary, in the parlance of climate scientists, we would say that CO2 was acting as a "feedback" over the time period in the figure above. In the past century, however, humans have taken over the carbon cycle and now dominate the year-to-year atmospheric changes. Thus CO2 has now become a "forcing."

---

Quote:

---

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." Al Gore has manipulated the statistics to cause panic among those not scientifically literate. Another example of his lies is his statement that sea levels will rise up to 20 feet over the next 100 years. Even the UN panel on global warming only predicts a maximum rise of 20 inches.

---

Quote:

---

I recently heard a well known physicist say in a documentary on String/Brane Theory that the consensus in the physics community is beginning to be that there is some validity to String Theory.

---

Quote:

---

He followed by saying that the fact that most believe without convincing evidence almost certainly means that they are all wrong.

---

Quote:

---

I can see why Gore's Global warming propaganda might be bought by the uneducated masses, but the fact that so many educated scientists have been convinced with so little evidence is scary to me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
As you can see from this post, while the correlation looks simple, the causality is more complicated than one might initially think.

In summary, in the parlance of climate scientists, we would say that CO2 was acting as a "feedback" over the time period in the figure above. In the past century, however, humans have taken over the carbon cycle and now dominate the year-to-year atmospheric changes. Thus CO2 has now become a "forcing"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
It would be great if climatologists could explain how this stable temperature period is related to CO2 given the fact that it began thousands of years before industrialization.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kirkules:
This is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm supposed to accept that some magic feedback mechanism is causing CO2 rise to lag temperature, but I just have to take the "experts" word for this because the mechanism is not yet understood. Also, because they don't understand the feedback mechanism it must be a result of humans taking over the carbon cycle.

---

Quote:

---

Citizen-

This coming from the guy who basis all his opinions on the Bible, and can't decide how old he is.

---

Quote:

---

It's easy to call you ignorant about science, because you're displaying your ignorance about science.

---

Quote:

---

You can't even manage basic English, describing you as a moron is an accurate description, not an insult.

---

Quote:

---

Also, I think you'll find Bible camp isn't "learning theocracy", not that memorising passages from the Bible is particularly impressive...

---

Quote:

---

How about you learn how to be a good Christian, instead of a lousy one as you currently are, before arrogantly assuming you're the only one who knows the truth based on nothing more than the say so of someone who should be on medication. You're the kind of person that gives Christians a bad name.

---

Quote:

---

You try to insult me, and describe yourself. Go save the world from the NWO Scientist instead of trolling here you unChristian wannabe theocratic weasel troll.

---