The Great Global Warming Swindle

[MinionZombie]

Go MZ, go! You get me in a room with Al Gore and all the politicians peddling this alarmist garbage and I'll bust some balls.

[Danny]

* al gore is talking in congres, mz and zombie man bust in in leather coats full of weapons, -que matrix lobby scene music...*

[MinionZombie]

* al gore is talking in congres, mz and zombie man bust in in leather coats full of weapons, -que matrix lobby scene music...* Ohhh that'd be soooo hot ... er, I mean ... that'd be soooo cool I'd barge in with some common sense and beat them over the beanbags/funbags with it, "CALM DOWN, BITCHES!" we'd roar...

[LouCipherr]

Just out of curiosity, if global warming is such a threat to the planet - and Gore is the "leader" of this so-called "save energy and the panet" movement, why won't the guy take a "personal energy ethics pledge"? Take a look: Gore Refuses to take Personal Energy Ethics Pledge Judging by the pledge, it doesn't seem like someone in his position and stance on global warming should have any ANY problem whatsoever signing this: As a believer: ·that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival; ·that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use; ·that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and ·that leaders on moral issues should lead by example; I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.” Yet he wouldn't take the pledge. Am I the only one that finds this slightly contradictory to his stance on the issue? He should've been ready to sign in a heartbeat. I'm just sayin'... "Things that make you go 'hmmmm......'"

[DVW5150]

Just out of curiosity, if global warming is such a threat to the planet - and Gore is the "leader" of this so-called "save energy and the panet" movement, why won't the guy take a "personal energy ethics pledge"? Take a look: Gore Refuses to take Personal Energy Ethics Pledge Judging by the pledge, it doesn't seem like someone in his position and stance on global warming should have any ANY problem whatsoever signing this: As a believer: ·that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue affecting our survival; ·that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use; ·that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and ·that leaders on moral issues should lead by example; I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.” Yet he wouldn't take the pledge. Am I the only one that finds this slightly contradictory to his stance on the issue? He should've been ready to sign in a heartbeat. I'm just sayin'... "Things that make you go 'hmmmm......'" Hmmm , he got am academy award for his "Inconvenient Truth" WTF? Thats not good , leaders should lead by example . I thought his film was good .Its not a matter of believing the world is melting , just that something is happening . There is proof . To ignore it is foolish .The debate stalls progress to do something in our small way as custodians of this planet. We are only residents of this globe , not the bosses .

[LouCipherr]

Agreed, something is indeed happening. The problem with Gore is he puts the blame on humans - yet other planets in our solar system are heating up too, and without the aid of human interference. Just an odd coincidence, or did we cause those planets to heat up too with our CO2 emissions? I think we have some pretty clear evidence that the warming trend on our planet is not human influenced - or at least human influence isn't the main cause... and that Gore is just being an alarmist. I'm all for conserving energy, but certain people are just being dishonest about it to gain more control over you.

[bassman]

I caught "An Inconvenient Truth" on tv the other night. Interesting watch. I didn't buy into all of it.....but interesting. The pointless line graphs got on my nerves, though.

[MinionZombie]

Al Gore was on Richard & Judy here in the UK (a TV talk show) and was interviewed by this stuff, then Richard brought up this documentary and the argument against what Gore is peddling - Gore got all defensive and really frosty all of a sudden and just said, basically, 'it's been proven, that's IT!!! ' What a complete dillhole. I don't deny our climate is changing, but like I constantly say, I'd rather trust the a-political, no conscience entity that is THE F*CKING SUN, to determine our climate than a heavily politicised BUSINESS movement. As for the "spiritual" line in that pledge, WHAT THE F*CK BEANS is that about?! The new religion for the 21st century, no diggity... Just think about it, without the Sun, everything on our planet would die - that's a massive amount of power and control over us from a big hot ball in the sky isn't it? So how is it so hard to understand that the same ball of flaming hot fire can determine our climate, a task that is far below - on the ladder of relatively-speaking - that our holding power over whether we live or die. Essentially, the Sun is our "God". I am sensing a seed of discontent growing into a plant of "HEY, F*CK YOU, BUDDY!" ... I hope that those who don't swallow this Gore & Co peddled shiite start coming forth in greater frequency. Like we've been constantly saying here, we don't deny climate change, but the CAUSE is what we differ on, and we don't believe it's humans doing all this, but the Sun and so forth. As for us humans, the next natural step in our evolution, as it stood anyway, was always going to be efficiency. We've had the massive foot forward with the Industrial Revolution, which has given us the somewhat-crude tools to power ourselves forward - now we just need to work out the kinks, which includes efficiency. It just makes good sense to recycle and turn to renewable energy (that is efficient and actually worthwhile, though). We don't have enough room to keep burying trash, so let's recycle it - it makes natural sense, and is a part of said strive for human efficiency like I said.

[Terran]

Objection: The sun is the source of all the warmth on earth. Any increase in temperature is most likely due to changes in solar radiation. Well, it's not an unreasonable first guess, but why leave it there, why not check and see what the sun is doing? Answer: It's very true that the earth is warmed, for all practical purposes, entirely by solar radiation. So if the temperature is going up or down a reasonable place to find the reason why would be the sun. It turns out that it is more complicated than one might think to detect and measure changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth. After all, one good cloud passing overhead can cause an instant shiver on an otherwise beautiful, warm day, but not because the sun itself changed. The best way to detect changes in the actual output of the sun versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth's surface because of clouds, smoke, dust or pollution is by taking readings from space. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend. There has been work on reconstructing past trends in solar irradiance over the last century before satellite records were available. Acording to the Max Plank Institute there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century that coincides with the warming from around 1900 til the 1940's. This trend in irradiance is responsible for large portion of that trend, together with around the same portion from CO2 forcing. See this chart of the observed trend, the modeled trend and the variations in the major forcings that contributed to 20th century climate. Real Climate has also done a couple of more detailed discussions both about what the conclusions about solar forcing are, as well as exactly how they were arrived at. Read them here and here. Other Guides, by Category http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/20...un-stupid.html

[LouCipherr]

So what you're trying to say is that the sun cannot be the cause of the planet heating up? Am I reading that correctly? If that's the case, please explain why other plants in our solar system are heating up too, just like the earth. No faster nor any slower than the earth is, either. Must be our CO2 floating through the solar system and landing on other planets, right? Is the surface record wrong in respect of both the amount of warming reported during the 1920s and in respect of the disputed warming trend it reports since 1979? In the latter case, the surface record is contradicted by both the satellite MSU record and the radio sonde record [2]. This is where individual station records can prove useful. Such records represent real temperatures recorded at real places one can find on a map [23]. As such they are not the product of esoteric statistical processing or computer manipulation, and each can be assessed individually. Some critics will dismiss individual station records as merely `anomalous' (in which case most of the non-urban stations would have to be dismissed on those grounds), but when one station acquires an importance far beyond its own little record, no effort is spared to discredit it. This was the fate of Cloncurry, Queensland, Australia, which holds the honour of having recorded the hottest temperature ever measured in Australia, a continent known for its hot temperatures. The record was 53.1°C set, not in the `warm' 1990s, but in 1889. It was a clear target for revisionism, for how can a skeptical public be convinced of `global warming' when Cloncurry holds such a century-old record? The attack was made by Blair Trewin of the School or Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne [27], with ample assistance from the whole meteorological establishment. And all this effort and expense was deployed to discredit one temperature reading on one hot day at one outback station 111 years ago. Stations do matter. SOURCE

[Terran]

Ive already mentioned the other planet arguement Objection: Global warming is happening on Mars and Pluto as well. Since there are no SUV's on Mars, CO2 can't be causing Global Warming. This is quite rich. One hundred years of weather station temperature data all over the globe and these guys still don't buy it. Three photos of one piece of ice on Mars and they have no doubts! As for Pluto, it hasn't even completed one orbit in the 150 years we've been reading the thermometers here on Earth! Still, avoid the temptation to laugh out loud... Answer: Warming on another planet would be an interesting coincidence but it does not necessarily have to have the same cause. The only relevant factor the Earth and Mars share is the sun, so if the warming were real and related it would have to be due to the sun. The sun is being watched and measured very carefully back here on earth and it is not the primary cause of the current climate change. As for this alledged finding, there is very little evidence to go on when it comes to discerning a global climate change on Mars. The only evidence out there that I am aware of is a series of photographs of a single icey region in the southern hemisphere that shows melting over a two year (~1 martian year) period. Here on earth we have direct measurements from all over the globe, widespread glacial retreat, reduction of sea ice and satellite measurements of the lower troposphere up to the stratosphere. To compare this mountain of data to a few photographs of a single region strains credulity. In fact, scientists studying Mars believe this is a regional change caused by Mars' own orbital cycles. See Global Warming on Mars? from Real Climate for more details. As for Pluto, a cursory glance at Pluto's orbit and atmosphere reveals how ridiculous it is to draw any conclusions about climate, much less climate change, from two occultation observations 14 years apart way out there in the ice cold and lonely Kuiper Belt! Back to Mars, here is a nice and succint way to compare the available evidence: On Earth, we have poles melting, surface temperature rising, tropospheric temperatures rising, permafrost melting, glaciers world wide melting, CO2 concentrations increasing, borehole analysis showing warming, sea ice receding, proxy reconstructions showing warming, sea level rising, sea surface temperatures rising, energy imbalance, ice sheets melting and stratosphere cooling which leads us to believe we have GHG driven global warming. One Mars we have one spot melting which leads us to believe...one spot is melting. Regional climate change is not the same thing as global climate change....

[LouCipherr]

Regional climate change is not the same thing as global climate change.... really now? Regional temperatures, if there was indeed global warming, would reflect this warming trend, would it not? It stands to reason that if the planet is warming, these regional observations would reflect that. They do not. So how can anyone possibly say the planet is warming if regional temperatures all over the planet do not show this trend? We're talking thousands and thousands of data points all over the earth here. ...and to say the other planets warming right along with earth is just "coincidence" is rather convienent, wouldn't you? As your quote stated, it doesn't "necessicarily mean" they were caused by the same thing but I find it hard that 3 different planets (or more) in our own solar system warming right along with earth is just a 'coincidence.' That's just way too easy of an answer for the people pushing this GW theory. Should I mention the pictures of the sun that were just released recently that shows what scientists are calling "the impossible" that has been found there? and that what they have found in these pictures now "re-writes what we know about the sun and it's effects on the solar system"? We could argue this to the ends of the soon-to-be-underwater earth but until someone can show hard data that there is indeed global warming (and not 'so-called' facts that contradictory to historical temperature data from across the world), then I just can't buy into it. It won't matter, we'll be underwater in what, 10 years? Isn't that Al's prediction?

[Terran]

really now? Regional temperatures, if there was indeed global warming, would reflect this warming trend, would it not? The short answer is no. Longer answer: If you look at another planet like mars and see a single region warming that is totally disreguarding what is happening elsewhere on the planet. Example being, if one region on the planet mars is warming and another region of the planet is cooling then global climate for practical purposes is constant, neither warming nor cooling despite regional effects. If martians had three satellite pictures of northamerica as winter was transitioning into spring and then into summer would they conclude that the entire planet was warming based on that one region....Of course not.... It stands to reason that if the planet is warming, these regional observations would reflect that. They do not. So how can anyone possibly say the planet is warming if regional temperatures all over the planet do not show this trend? We're talking thousands and thousands of data points all over the earth here. Portions of what I said above address this but additionally regional data by themselves are useless because as this global climate change develops on earth some regions on earth will get colder on average than they are now but the overall planet's climate will be warmer. Saying that the whole planet is going to get warmer is not saying that every region on the planet is going to get warmer..... ...and to say the other planets warming right along with earth is just "coincidence" is rather convienent, wouldn't you? As your quote stated, it doesn't "necessicarily mean" they were caused by the same thing but I find it hard that 3 different planets (or more) in our own solar system warming right along with earth is just a 'coincidence.' That's just way too easy of an answer for the people pushing this GW theory. As stated in previous posts and in this one there is no evidence of other planets warming. We have evidence of individual regions on planets warming, but a singular region by itself tells us nothing about the planets global climate. Pluto takes 247.8 years to revolve around the Sun so we havent even witnessed the full "seasonal" effect yet. Should I mention the pictures of the sun that were just released recently that shows what scientists are calling "the impossible" that has been found there? and that what they have found in these pictures now "re-writes what we know about the sun and it's effects on the solar system"? You can mention it but I wouldnt understand how it supports any conclusion since I have already addressed the sun and how "According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend. " We could argue this to the ends of the soon-to-be-underwater earth but until someone can show hard data that there is indeed global warming (and not 'so-called' facts that contradictory to historical temperature data from across the world), then I just can't buy into it. I dont know where you coming from talking about an underwater earth?...Ive already mentioned earlier in this thread that I dont know of any scientists agreeing with the human caused global climate change who have claimed that the earth is going to be underwater....Are you trying to make a ridiculous claim to defuse other more sensible conclusions? In reguards to the claim that this conclusion is contradictory to historical temperature data from across the world. Where did you get that statement from!? The whole reason the overwhelming consensus of invididual scientists, and scientific institutions have come to this conclusion is BECAUSE it compliments historical temperature data from across the world. Not only that it also compliments other independent contemporary studies from different displines like: NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis CRU direct surface temperature analysis Satellite Data Radiosondes Borehole analysis Glacial melt observations Sea ice melt Sea level rise Proxy Reconstructions Permafrost is melting What more evidence do you need to "buy" it. What your doing is exactly what I mentioned poeple do in a previous post in this thread.... Ill sum up that post in an example: 80% of scientists conclude that the earth is round 10% Conclude that it is flat, 5% conclude that it is cuboidal, 3% conclude that it is a giant pyramid, and 2% conclude that it is infact a giant turtle shell. I would agree that the 80% of scientists are probally correct and all empirical research supports their claim. But if your global climate change stance is an indication of how you would react then you would respond like this. "I cannot buy the conclusion that the earth is round. It contradicts the finding that it is flat. It contradicts the finding that it is cuboidal, it contradicts the finding that it is a giant pyramid and it contradicts the finding that it is a giant turtle shell" So while you havent claimed to support any of the alternative conclusions their mere existance is enough for you not to reasonably consider the consensus. You and others will say that this is not what you are doing but when you take dozens of different contradictory claims to weaken a single more supported claim that is exactly what you are doing. In one response you will take "evidence" that the earth's climate change is being caused by the sun. Then this will get followed up with "evidence" that earth's climate change is happening from natural planetary(not sun) processes. Then this will get followed up with "evidence" that global climate change is not occuring at all. So one would use three different alternative claims to weaken the one stronger one. Each of these claims individually suffer from far more historical and empirical contradictions than the stronger claim yet somehow this tactic convinces people. That whole recent report that came out concluding that there is a 90% probality that global climate change is caused from humans contained volumes of "hard data" supporting it. And before that there were scores and scores of "hard data" supporting it. I guess I should be asking you and others what type of "hard data" are you looking for that would make you consider human caused global climate change. This should be enlightening for several possibilities: It will either demonstrate a misunderstanding of what actual global climate change means, or.... It will allow you and others to clarify the key issues that makes you questionable of the consensus conclusion. (and this would point out how many different alternative theories one is holding onto to weaken one.) It will help me understand why people dont believe it. Because so far the only reason I can come up with that people dont support this conclusion is that they dont particularly care what happens in about lifetime so that they want things to remain how they are, taxes, transportation costs, etc...Or/Additionally they dont particularly believe that humans are capable of having a large effect on the planent so any evidence no matter how credible that contradicts the consensus conclusion is viewed disporportionately stronger.

[Chic Freak]

May I be the first to say... PWN3D! Go Terran!

[Neil]

80% of scientists conclude that the earth is round 10% Conclude that it is flat, 5% conclude that it is cuboidal, 3% conclude that it is a giant pyramid, and 2% conclude that it is infact a giant turtle shell. I would agree that the 80% of scientists are probally correct and all empirical research supports their claim. Not wishing to sound facetious, but once upon a time 1% of scientists said we evolved from apes and 99% said we didn't... Opinions change, especially when to a certain degree these opinion are sort of 'pyramids of knowledge', ie: one opinion is based on someone elses which is based on someone else etc... etc... Now, please don't mis-understand my point here - I'm on the fence regarding global warming and regularly hop from one side of it to the other as the areas seems generally muddy and boggy with no clear place to stand...