U.N: Global warming crisis overblown

reply to post by 1104light


Lol. He did make a fortune off of it, I believe the link said he made 10,000% profit over 7 years... You can take that information or you can leave it, choice is yours. I'm not posting more links because you don't wanna read.

It's called research you should try it sometime...

-SAP-

reply to post by SloAnPainful


It is cool that you have no idea. 10,000% of what? 10,000% of 0 is 0. You have no answers and that is ok, just admit it. Why repeat things you are told to thin without actually looking into them for yourself?

reply to post by 1104light


Why don't you find the figures?

I posted a link... Did you even read it? Obviously not...

But I'll digress...

-SAP-

reply to post by SloAnPainful


You made the claim, you need to back it up. Your link did not do that. Did you read your link? You made an assertion, either back it up or admit it was BS.

reply to post by 1104light


I at least laid out some facts for you to consider. All you have done is demand people to do research for you and provide numbers that are impossible to know the exact figures... I'm not wasting my time replying to your posts any longer.

-SAP-

Cynic
Climate Change s real. AGW is a man-concocted myth to scam the general population into thinking they can buy their way out through taxation, guilt trips and a small wealth transfer to the Third World.

No, AGW is real. But it's being used by politicians and others to scam the general population into thinking they can buy their way out through taxation, guilt trips and a small wealth transfer to the Third World. Subtle difference.

If AGW is responsible then why should we allow others to belch out more of this substance. Simply refer to China, they have and are constructing more coal fired generation plants than Western countries and will be exempted or simply ignore their "obligations" to reduce emissions.

Actually, China is spending billions on building wind farms and is generating more and more electricty that way

ie:

www.bloomberg.com...

(whether wind farms are actually a viable alternative to coal and gas, given that they are susceptible to the whois of Mother Nature, is another matter!)

The problem is: if we in the West have limitless cheap electricity, why deny it to others? A conunndrum, I admit, when doing so causes detrimental environmental changes, especially to those in the developing world.

You can't have it both ways.

But that's what we want.

However, wanting it both ways doesn't change the fact that human activities are affecting climate to our detriment.


Notwithstanding which, obviously all natural changes in cimate are also occurring additionally to any changes humans are causing. Or vice versa, if you like.

SloAnPainful
reply to post by 1104light

 

I at least laid out some facts for you to consider. All you have done is demand people to do research for you and provide numbers that are impossible to know the exact figures... I'm not wasting my time replying to your posts any longer.

-SAP-

I just figured this... 1104light IS Al Gore!

I am sure dear ol' Mr. Gore made all that money from yard sales and lemonade stands though, and not a cent from promoting his fraudulent AGW nonsense. I also wonder if he bought any carbon credits to offset his HUGE carbon footprint?

reply to post by 1104light


Why should I have to bother with Big Al's personal finances? Money is really not the issue here.
It's about transparency.

Since he didn't bother to follow up the original disaster movie by attacking subsequent Inconvenient Truths raised mostly, but not limited to, data that the IPCC has ignored or is suppressing. Data which was not cherry picked that would show them to be none other than the mouth piece for those who want to further fatten their pockets in yet another scam.

It is well known (subsequent to the horror show Big Al flogged) that the IPCC fudged the number to ensure Agenda 21 would be accepted by the general public. The scare mongering blew up in their collective faces big time.

I ask again, where is the sequel? More importantly, why haven't Al Gore and his cast of thousands risen to the occasion and defended their position against the new and improved factual information presented that disputes the allegations that AGW is the cause and effect of Climate Change?

I believe your comments surrounding his personal finances are simply an attempt to divert discussion on the core matter at hand. Read trolling.

The silence from Big Al is deafening. Where is he now?

reply to post by AndyMayhew


You raise good talking points however their is a fundamental flaw in your rebuttal.
If AGW is causing Climate Change, why did the IPCC fudge their data - Cherry-Pick if you like to make Agenda 21 more believable than it actually is. More importantly, why do ice core samples show a variation of about .1% in carbon emissions attributed in theory by man since the time of the Industrial Revolution?

IPCC data suggests the climate is changing, a fact not in dispute here, but now we are back to another Ice Age not a hotter planner as originally foretold. Again, they cannot have it both ways.

China may be building wind farms, but they have also built more coal fired generators than the West combined. No doubt to offset the lack of power generated when the wind doesn't blow. Many of these propellers require electric motors as back up for such occasions so the conundrum is , where does that power come from?

reply to post by Cynic

You raise good talking points however their is a fundamental flaw in your rebuttal.

There's no flaw in his rebuttal, it only seems that way because the knowledge you possess came from lies.

f AGW is causing Climate Change, why did the IPCC fudge their data - Cherry-Pick if you like to make Agenda 21 more believable than it actually is.

They didn't fudge data nor cherry-pick.

More importantly, why do ice core samples show a variation of about .1% in carbon emissions attributed in theory by man since the time of the Industrial Revolution?

They don't.

IPCC data suggests the climate is changing, a fact not in dispute here, but now we are back to another Ice Age not a hotter planner as originally foretold. Again, they cannot have it both ways.

We aren't back to another ice age. Again you have been lied to. If you're referring to the difference in this years September arctic ice extent compared to last September's arctic ice extent then you've referred to a source that actually does cherry pick as well as relying on the ignorance of the denier crowd. This years ice didn't melt as much as it did in 2012... if you put your critical thinking cap on for a second you will see why this does not indicate growth or recovery.

Most importantly in regard to the OP and the thread in general. The next IPCC report is likely to raise the alarm not lower it, but the typical denier bloggers and media outlets like the Daily Fail and WSJ are in spin mode trying to alter the tone quite sure that most of you think what you're reading is truth and won't bother looking at the report itself.

One other thing to note in regard to the issue in general... The scientists involved in the IPCC are not paid, they are volunteers.

reply to post by Kali74

Most importantly in regard to the OP and the thread in general. The next IPCC report is likely to raise the alarm not lower it, but the typical denier bloggers and media outlets like the Daily Fail and WSJ are in spin mode trying to alter the tone quite sure that most of you think what you're reading is truth and won't bother looking at the report itself.

What is it with your obsession to reduce the entire debate to a oversimplified propaganda battle, as if the only group of people raising serious and valid criticism of the IPCC's work, would be a bunch of denialists backed by Big Oil and the right wing media. You're accusing others of spinning the truth. You did just that, again. You're more than intelligent enough to know exactly what you're doing.

Quite a few scientists are realizing it is only further damaging the credibility of climate science not to adress the major issues and to insist the science is settled and anybody who says otherwise is just a denier. Maybe you should catch up.

Here. One example - valid - serious - fundamental - not the WSJ or the Mail - no denier involved - no Big Oil funding - real climate scientists - published in Nature - peer reviewed.

Overestimated global warming

Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This
difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.

The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade.

It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary hiatus’ in global warming. The divergence between observed and CMIP5-simulated global warming begins in the early 1990s, as can be seen when comparing observed and simulated running trends from 1970–2012.

Nature Climate Change

We could do this all day.

As time progresses, there will be more of this, not less. Name-calling will not suffice.

reply to post by Kali74


It's seems we must agree to disagree. I am correct in my assertions, you are not.

You have obviously ignored recent events remaining blissfully ignorant of the fact that the IPCC fudged their numbers to prove their own hypothesis. They have hidden data and this was recently exposed.

It is now being accepted that the climate is changing solar system wide, not just Earth. Unless you believe that humans are having an effect on Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn etc. etc.

Also, could you explain why the Earth has entered a period of cooling and the IPCC is adjusting their theory to acknowledge such a fact? We are returning to original proposals from the 1960's that we are entering a mini ice age and not roasting due to planet wide warming.

Where is Al Gore on this recent Inconvenient Truth? His silence on the matter is deafening. Rather than defending his position with a follow up to the first charade and disputing the new revelations he is noticeably absent from the discussion.

Why? Likely because he knows that the debate was nothing more than a way to continue raping the public and guilt-tripping them into believing that they could be taxed into oblivion all the while feeling good about it.

Enjoy being wrong, and continue to revel in your wrongness.

reply to post by talklikeapirat


Already commented on that paper in 727Sky's thread and provided a link to the actual paper that isn't paywalled. If you care to read the paper, you will understand exactly what they are and aren't saying.

What is it with your obsession to reduce the entire debate to a oversimplified propaganda battle, as if the only group of people raising serious and valid criticism of the IPCC's work, would be a bunch of denialists backed by Big Oil and the right wing media.

Because mostly that it what is presented here. Would you like me to create a second account find these legit contrarian papers and debate myself?

reply to post by Cynic


By insisting the AGW debate begins and ends with Al Gore as if it's his baby and he is the authority figure on the matter, you display your ignorance like a male peacock displaying his tail.

I assure you that I'm quite up to date on climate science.

reply to post by Kali74


Al Gore was very effective at promoting this propaganda. I think the one you just called an "ignorant peacock" has a very legit point.

Plus, the data was indeed tempered with before public presentation. It's paradoxically called "Bias compensation" and it basically legally allows scientists to add a couple of degrees to the raw data.

People believe what they want to believe.

There's a report which concludes every possible outcome of climate change/AGW ... whatever you want to call it, and people choose to focus on the ones which support their beliefs.

I look at the reasoning provided by the denialists and know that it's quite poor, but wonder what the point is in attempting to debate someone who is sticking to their beliefs?!

It's what they choose. I could provide all the reasoning in the world, and still they would stick to their beliefs.

I'll put it this way:

The mayor of New York decided to ban soda's larger than 16oz last year. Was that a scam? Was he colluding with industry by using his position to increase profit margins by forcing people to buy more products for the equivalent wanted oz per day?

Or maybe, just maybe the data indicated that we had a sharp rise in obesity over the last 30-40 years, and this correlated with increased sugar consumption. Maybe we had so much data over time, that the correlation became a known primary cause, and someone decided they needed to do something about it.

Perhaps soda consumption didn't go down. Maybe his good intentions produced a bad result. Does it make obesity a lie? Does it make the issue simply a scam?

Ridiculous reasoning in this thread.

reply to post by Kali74


To err is human. I respect the fact that you have erred and forgive you.

By ignoring today's Inconvenient Truths exposed recently which oppose Gore's position, you have obviously drank Al's Kool-Aid and are still downing it today.

You failed to address the other points mentioned in my post so I can only conclude that you are nothing more than an AGW proponent that doesn't know what they are spewing out about.

Continue to revel in your wrongness, you obviously enjoy being obtuse.

Cynic
reply to post by Kali74

 

To err is human. I respect the fact that you have erred and forgive you.

By ignoring today's Inconvenient Truths exposed recently which oppose Gore's position, you have obviously drank Al's Kool-Aid and are still downing it today.

You failed to address the other points mentioned in my post so I can only conclude that you are nothing more than an AGW proponent that doesn't know what they are spewing out about.

Continue to revel in your wrongness, you obviously enjoy being obtuse.

That would be because my eyes glaze over whenever I read nonsense about the solar system warming up all over (it isn't, proven fact) or that the sun is producing more energy (it is and has been in a lower phase, proven fact) and I've posted on those aspects many, many times. And here's a bombshell for you, I've never seen an Inconvenient Truth, nor listened to more than a snippet of any lecture Al Gore has ever given on any subject.

Also, could you explain why the Earth has entered a period of cooling and the IPCC is adjusting their theory to acknowledge such a fact? We are returning to original proposals from the 1960's that we are entering a mini ice age and not roasting due to planet wide warming.

They aren't saying we're entering a period cooling and you will see as much when the actual report comes out... if you dare to read it for yourself that is.

reply to post by Kali74


"That would be because my eyes glaze over whenever I read nonsense about the solar system warming up all over (it isn't, proven fact) or that the sun is producing more energy (it is and has been in a lower phase, proven fact) and I've posted on those aspects many, many times. And here's a bombshell for you, I've never seen an Inconvenient Truth, nor listened to more than a snippet of any lecture Al Gore has ever given on any subject."
________________________________________________________________________________________

More's the pity. If you had, you would have reached the same conclusion as we so-called deniers.

Kindly read the studies on solar contributions to system wide climate change, and those which now refute planetary heating in favor of planetary cooling.

Or you can choose to be ignorant and continue to claim that humans have any real contribution to the cause, especially when it is a fact that this a natural process which has happened many times prior to our arrival on the planet.

Peacock out.

Kali74
They aren't saying we're entering a period cooling and you will see as much when the actual report comes out... if you dare to read it for yourself that is.

edit on 18-9-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

Hm, there hasn't been any major global warming since 16 years. If anything, temperatures went slightly down.