Al Gore is wrong on global warming

reply to post by melatonin


I am ot disregarding science, I am still trying to find it. A report issued by the IPCC with numerous errors and assumptions leading to flawed results and an incorrect thesis is not science. It is just another theory. You can not claim theory is science. When people like you keep spooting things like that, you give more credance for the deniers. Stop arguing, incorrect science and use a little logic. If you just admit, that there are possiblities we are not the direct cause of global warming, I think we can all sleep a little better tonight. Logic dictates, that humans play a part (i feel a small part) in global warming. Based on the history of the world, we play a small part in the global warming of the current change in the climate change cycle!!!!!!!!!!!!! We can not conrtol the earth, we can not control weather patterns over long periods of time. its a cycle! Cycles come and cycles go, but change will never hurt me. I adapt!

This is sooooo much fun!

Originally posted by Saurus

Aah, but it is...

We believe that the world is almost spherical because all scientists agree with the evidence. If the evidence was disputed by some scientists, it would most certainly not be regarded as fact.

You are mixing it up. The evidence is not disputed because currently, we can not find flaws with the evidence. However, if one scientist was able to gain data to prove that the the evidences are wrong, then that one scientist's work can change the understanding.

Science is not proved because of consensus. It's about those evidence that you pointed out, that makes a theory stand. It is the repeatable datas, the hard evidence, that makes science stand. Should a new and better theory arises, no matter how many people believe in the wrong theory, it does not make the wrong theory the right one. Consensus is not a decision on which theory is correct.

Originally posted by twinklefall
I suggest people read this article. This article may give you more awareness of how science works, and what to watch out for when researching about global warming. Learn about the flaws in the arguments used for man-made global warming.

members.iinet.net.au...

Bob Carter is one of the worst denialists out there. Another right-wing think-tank shill. If you think Gore is politically motivated, these guys are even worse.

That's not even a scientific article, but some sort of conference paper. The references are full of more denialist science, like the Beck article on CO2 from the crank journal Energy & Environment.

This guy is a lying shill. Take this for example:

However, our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails.

linky

This is just BS, all the satellite data shows increasing temps over the last few decades. So why is he lying to people?

You. Are. Being. Lied. To. By. These. Denialists.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by melatonin]

reply to post by traderonwallst


Hey if you're interested in the science, why haven't you commented on my idea about the undersea volcanoes? It's lost in page 2.

reply to post by traderonwallst


I dont know if your are the smartes kid in your playrom or anything. But my point wasnt 30.000 years, but that the ice melts VERY fast. Not over 100 years, but in 10 or 20, or maybe less.

Google car polution in china, and make up your mind on what the problem is over there. And then you say "well, they have a much bigger population than us" . Then I point out that you numbheaded americans drive cars that polute 3 times more.

You are mixing it up. The evidence is not disputed because currently, we can not find flaws with the evidence. However, if one scientist was able to gain data to prove that the the evidences are wrong, then that one scientist's work can change the understanding.

But this is exactly my point. Not all evidence and not all data support the fact that the increase we observe in the climate is directly due to humans.

When the evidence becomes undisputed, only then may we call it fact.

I must add that the evidence is very convincing, and that I personally feel that humans are responsible for the observed changes.

I just don't feel that it's right to say that it has been 'proved.'

Originally posted by melatonin

This is just BS, all the satellite data shows increasing temps over the last few decades. So why is he lying to people?

[edit on 16-10-2007 by melatonin]

Your link doesn't work. Repost the link please. I

On what facts and notes are you basing your claims against Bob Carter? That article was peer reviewed. And I would like to point out that alot of the flaws he pointed out has alot of logic in it. And this article does not rule out that there are absolutely no man-made influence on the climate - it simply just ask you review the whole situation and not to jump into hysteria.

Perhaps point out the flaws in his arguments first rather than flaming a man who dared to stand up and speak his ideas.

Hey amigos of ats.

Yo I love this site! respect to all of you girls and boys posting interesting and eye opening threads, keep them coming.

So trade, you were just having a bit of fun huh? deep down your a greeny?

I must say I enjoyed (am enjoying) your slightly heated thread. The future of our civilization is a worthy topic indeed.

I too think the human race will eventually implode. It is almost as if we are predestined to do so. As if it were part of our DNA to seek and destroy. Somewhere along the relatively short time line of early man's existence, culture became the driving force of our evolutionary process. Culture = progress = conquest = eventual war. Around 40,000 years ago our ancient ancestors (the Cro-Magnon and the Neanderthal) began a battle for supremacy that would last thousands of years. Murder runs deep in the veins my friends.

I do not think that Earth's fragile eco-system is past the "tipping point" yet. What I do believe is that our multi-national civilization is so divided by religious beliefs, hatred and jealousy, that they will never get it together in time to reel in this out of control lab experiment.

Many will perish but there will be no extinction.

Originally posted by Saurus


But this is exactly my point. Not all evidence and not all data support the fact that the increase we observe in the climate is directly due to humans.

When the evidence becomes undisputed, only then may we call it fact.

That is my point exactly, which basically mean we both agree that it is the facts and repeatable datas that science is based on, and not consensus. That should a situation arise that a fact is disputed because of a creditable flaw, that consensus is not going to indicate that it is right, but the flaw indicates that the theory is wrong.

Honestly, I wish I can slide with you on your side. Your side simply is much less harassed when arguing it. It's causes are very noble and the theory is beautiful and dramatic. Climate is so hard to understand, so many independent variable plays into it, that it is hard to really determine what is affecting what and how much. Just because I don't' believe that Man is the driving cause of global warming, does not mean I do not believe in taking care of the environment. I am arguing this simply out of scientific values, and honestly it is good that we are debating for it is only this way can all the truth and wrong surface.

Saurus, have you read that article with open mindedness and fair criticisms? It is definitely important that anyone reading this question the facts and chase up his reference to see whether or not you come to his same conclusions.

Originally posted by twinklefall
Your link doesn't work. Repost the link please.

Fixed.

On what facts and notes are you basing your claims against Bob Carter? That article was peer reviewed. And I would like to point out that alot of the flaws he pointed out has alot of logic in it. And this article does not rule out that there are absolutely no man-made influence on the climate - it simply just ask you review the whole situation and not to jump into hysteria.

What scientific journal is the article from?

Perhaps point out the flaws in his arguments first rather than flaming a man who dared to stand up and speak his ideas.

I have just done so. Check any of the satellite data for the areas of the atmosphere that are predicted to warm. They are.

So why is he lying?

The graph in the telegraph article is the MSU data for the mid-troposphere, this area of the atmosphere is actually predicted to not change. So why is he using it to counter current theories? The prediction from GHG-warming is that stratopshere will cool (it is), the mid-tropo will stay consistent (it is), and the lower troposphere will warm (it is).

Do you think he is ignorant enough about the science to make an honest mistake? I don't think so. This is the norm for him, from his 'warming stopped in 1998' BS to this issue. Just pure disinformation.

I read a decent article showing proof that the entire solar system is heating up, for unknown reasons. It could be a sun cycle, higher energy in space, even planet Niburu who knows.

www.enterprisemission.com...


In all cases, earth is definitively not warming up because of human action. Earth is warming up for the same reason the entire solar system is warming up.

reply to post by tep200377


I am not saying "over" 30,000 years. I am saying we were not around 30,000 years ago. Maybe 30,000 years ago the earth went through the same thing, where over a 15 year period ice melted at the same rapid rate that is doing now. You ever stop to think about that???? Come on, YOU JUST CAN'T blatantly keeping stating things without unequivocal evidence to back you up. I have no evidence that happend 30,000 years ago, BUT who is to say it did not happen???

reply to post by tep200377


Who are you calling numbheads? people who disagree with you? well thats just not nice!

This is just BS, all the satellite data shows increasing temps over the last few decades. So why is he lying to people?

You. Are. Being. Lied. To. By. These. Denialists.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by melatonin]

OH COME ON!!!!! IPCC report has been proven to contain error after error after error. It was forced to be revised numerous times. They used assumptions to fill in the gaps when data was not available.

WHO IS BEING LIED TO????


This is like shooting fish in a barrel!!!!!!!! Just funner!!!



[edit on 16-10-2007 by traderonwallst]

melatonin

You have yet to push forward evidence to support your rejection of the claims that Bob Carter made. Your claiming that there are countless evidence out there, is not an evidence. I would really like to see those sources from you.

I suggest you redress your forum's post with less aggressiveness. Name calling and accusation of people lying is not the sort of behavior in this type of debate.

If you can debunk his theories with evidence, there is simpily no need for this.

The source of this article is in the AusIMM New Leaders' Conference. The draft was reviewed by two other scientist, Dr Basil Beamish and Dr Gerrit van der Lingen, with proper referencing to countness scientific articles.




[edit on 16-10-2007 by twinklefall]

That is my point exactly, which basically mean we both agree that it is the facts and repeatable datas that science is based on, and not consensus. That should a situation arise that a fact is disputed because of a creditable flaw, that consensus is not going to indicate that it is right, but the flaw indicates that the theory is wrong.

Yes, I agree with you 100%.

My point was that there is consensus that there is no credible flaw. But this is semantics. I agree with your statement on what is regarded as fact.

Honestly, I wish I can slide with you on your side. Your side simply is much less harassed when arguing it. It's causes are very noble and the theory is beautiful and dramatic. Climate is so hard to understand, so many independent variable plays into it, that it is hard to really determine what is affecting what and how much. Just because I don't' believe that Man is the driving cause of global warming, does not mean I do not believe in taking care of the environment. I am arguing this simply out of scientific values, and honestly it is good that we are debating for it is only this way can all the truth and wrong surface.

Here again, I don't think humans are the main cause of greenhouse gas emissions on the planet, but that a delicate balance could be easily upset by the (very) small changes which are caused by humans, and therefore, that we should take precautions.

Saurus, have you read that article with open mindedness and fair criticisms? It is definitely important that anyone reading this question the facts and chase up his reference to see whether or not you come to his same conclusions.

Yes, and I have not reached a definite conclusion yet. I am still biased in favour of humans having had some influence on the climate, based on everything I have read on the subject, although I am open to evidence from the other side...

Originally posted by robert z




I am incredibly surprised that people on a forum such as ATS that is devoted to conspiracies are not the least bit suspicious when the United Nations and Al Gore are awarded the Nobel Prize, which caused the NY Times to promptly declare this means all of the global warming hysteria has been validated.

Robert, Robert, Robert...don't you know that only Republicans conspire? Al Gore and the Useless Nations are the good guys!

reply to post by Wall_N_Broad


This was this member's very first post!

You just signed up on ATS to post that?

Yes fellow ATSers, people really do come in here solely for the purpose of derailing and political baiting.

Peace