@malaysiancommenting We see food riots around the world for the first time in years. Governments sold crazy notion of burning food in cars based on being green and politically correct. Bio fuels starve children. Spending 20+ billion on stupid man's co2 is big false warming is only their excuse to tax and trade carbon. Spending 20 billion on a non-problem means we wasted huge amounts of resources and money that is not solving our problems or feeding the poor of the world
Thses guys say that the world is warmer because of humans,please.Al Gore says this and he has a grave face saying it omg he says we are going to run out of fresh water,LIKE IT'S GONNA STOP RAINING LOL.It has been proven that from the begining of time,there is the same amount of fresh and salty water on earth there has allways been.Stop scaring people to make money!!!!!
I HAVE NEVER READ SO MUCH CRAP IN MY LIFE. These guys clearly aren't even scientifically legitimate and have no proof of actually conducting scientific work. I can't believe some people would go out of their way to fool the public like this.
And what text or statement is it you are disagreeing with? I mean this response of yours has no scientific thinking or logical reasoning and is not based on science. Because your response has no science in it, does that mean what you stated here is not to be trusted and is completely invalidated? In other words based on your own logic we should not be listening to your statements here because they are not science? So we must make an act of faith to believe in what you say here?
oooohh you ffing estadounidenses (not including the ones on Gore's side).. since it's not convenient for you because you would have to leave your world of comfortability and unlimited use of the planet, That is why you guys make these kind of videos. You're just like the people mentioned in the documentary itself: those whose salary depends on "not understanding it"
Last time I looked it was Al Gore flying around in private jets, leaving chauffeured limousines running while giving speechs for you to become poor while laughing to the bank as he sits On the Board of co2 trading company. If these guys could trade and tax your glass of water and you're stupid enough to let them do it then they will fleece your pockets even more. Carbon has freed us from living in cold dirty caves and using wood to cook our food. The hypocrisy of Gore and you is astounding
You can't argue with some of his statistics. I mean...his proof is RIGHT THERE. Of course you're qualified to do research of your own, and you should, but really what he's saying should be taken into consideration of your own opinion. Use common sense: don't completely absorb what one person is saying and refuse to listen to the other. That is ignorance.
buying a mansion on the beach has no relevance to downtown manhattan being under water as it was yesterday. my point was to show that there IS a likelyhood of this happening.
see potholer54 on youtube- climate change, gore vs durkin (and all his other videos if you wanna learn some great stufff)
Hurricanes have been around for thousands of years, and Irene compared to many Hurricanes 10 years or so ago, wasn't that bad. There is some truth to climate change(Pollution, destruction of fossil fuels,etc) however, for a guy so worried about man-made global warming(Al Gore) didn't stop him from purchasing a mansion on the beach.
If you haven’t seen it watch “The Obama Deception HQ Full Length Version” now on youtube and (if you like it) please RE-POST to every youtube video you can find the time to. :) We need real change and it starts with getting the truth out there. Bachmann, Perry and Romney would just be more of the same..
Re: "... by making dubious assumptions and "accepting" the data WHEN it went the way they wanted it to, and when it did not, they DUMPED it"
That's a ridiculous characterization. The proxy data is KNOWN reliable over time spans, and known unreliable over a briefer time span. The scientists openly noted, investigated (and have many good ideas about) the reasons for this "divergence probelm".
You think the fact that they don't use KNOWN bad data indicates some kind of deception?
Chris Horner: "Since the 3rd UN report, for which this was the smoking gun, there's been a 4th UN report. Does anybody see a hockey stick in there anywhere? I can't see ya! It's not in there. Guess what: it's air-brushed out - in classic fashion - and they don't even mention why it's not here. What hockey stick? I didn't see any hockey stick."
Denier lies: AR4 WG1 Sec 6.6.1.1 "What Do Reconstructions Based on Palaeoclimatic Proxies Show?" has graphs (Figure 6.10) and discusses the hockey stick.
Golly, if they put it back in, then things are MUCH worse than we thought! If there ever been a graph based on garbage that mockery stick wins the prize here. Splicing data from two different sources and basing such a poster child graph on about 12 trees is beyond insane. If you think the IPCC is the poster child of honesty then you must be paid with subsides from choo choo train Pachari who is in fraud and money grab schemes worse then Mr. carbon trader Al Gore. You cannot be serious here!
Re: "Golly, if they put it back in, then things are MUCH worse than we thought!"
I didn't say they put it back in. I said Chris Horner lied - it was always there.
Re: "If there ever been a graph based on garbage that mockery stick wins the prize here."
If you read only denier bs, that's the "obvious" conclusion. If instead you read seeking the truth, you'd discover that its justification was perfectly credible - an imperfect early long reconstruction, true, but not "garbage".
Re: "If you think the IPCC is the poster child of honesty then you must be paid with subsides from choo choo train Pachari who is in fraud and money grab schemes worse then Mr. carbon trader Al Gore."
Conspiracy theorists, who uncritically swallow the denier propaganda that smears the science (and the people doing or conveying the science) and fabricates absurd conspiracies, continually prove that their judgment and understanding of the REAL world is garbage.
I'm quite serious. Chris Horner lied. He said - mockingly even - that the hockey stick graph, and a discussion of it, was nowhere to be found in the IPCC's 4th report. As I stated (and cited!) before, that's a bold-faced lie, pure and simple.
I sure feel sorry for anyone who paid their hard-earned money, and invested their precious time, on Chris Horner's book "The Politically Incorrect Guide To Global Warming". However, they should've expected as much, since deceit is politically incorrect!
Some tree ring data starting going the wrong way so they chopped in and overlaid some instrument data at point on the graph to hide a decline. Only dishonest people would come here to defend such garbage. National of council of statistics during testimony to Congress was scathing as to how inappropriate such use of data was. No one of sound mind who seeks truth and science would EVER attempt to defend this garbage hockey stick. Why attempt to defend something that is just crap and poorly done?
Re: "Some tree ring data starting going the wrong way so they chopped in and overlaid some instrument data at point on the graph to hide a decline."
The innocuous facts about "hide the decline":
1. The "divergence problem" was openly documented.
2. That "climate-gate" sentence referred to a graph on a cover page of a report. It was meant as a fair representation of our best understanding of the planet's temp history, so appropriately excluded the region of known-wrong data.
3. That the graph contained data as well as the tree ring data was documented in the report.
4. That the graph included data additional to the cited tree-ring paper was patently obvious from the graph itself, as it included temps for years AFTER the date of cited paper (if that's intentional deception, then it's the dumbest attempt ever!)
Put that all together and there's nothing secret, deceptive, or inappropriate about Jones's graph.
Finally, this has nothing to do with Mann's hockey stick graph. "Hide the decline" appears in an email discussing Jones's graph, not Mann's. It does refer to using Mann's "Nature trick" (trick meaning technique/approach), but again, the criticisms of Mann's hockey stick have nothing to do with this "trick".
You've gotten yourself very confused about all these matters - you've jumbled your denier talking-points into a collage of mixed up facts and events.
Re: "Only dishonest people would come here to defend such garbage."
I've only defended the actual truth against the misrepresentations and slanders spread by many of the deniers (which does not necessarily include you, as your errors might be honest mistakes and confusions).
If you're accussing me of being dishonest, you should first have good reason - or it's your own character that's called into question.
Re: "National of council of statistics during testimony to Congress was scathing as to how inappropriate such use of data was"
1. There is no National Council of Statistics in the USA.
2. I assume you intended the Wegman Report, the congressionally commissoned report into Mann's paper authored by 3 statisticians. (I'll ignore commenting on Rep Joe Barton, other than to call him a disgusting human being)
3. The Wegman Report had criticisms, but was not "scathing" as you claimed.
4. Some conclusions of Wegman Report themselves came under criticism from some in the scientific community. The report wasn't written by scientists and didn't undergo peer review.
5. So it was a critical, but not scathing, report from non-scientists that wasn't peer-reviewed, and when released faced some serious criticism itself. Furthermore, it was commissioned by a Big Oil congressman and was put to transparent political use in Congress.
6. There was another report on Mann's hockey stick released at about the same time. I assume you were confusing the name "National Council of Statistics" with the name "National Research Council", the NRC. It's a part of The National Academies of Sciences, and it also released a report on Mann's work.
7. The NRC report, written by scientists, also had some provisos and criticisms about Mann's work, but overall generally endorsed the crediblity and principle conclusions of his paper.
Most happy to be corrected that it was not a Academy, fine be it National Council of Satiations and YES their review was SCATHING of the methodology used in their testimony before congress. At my college level courses such overlying of data sets without this clearly being marked would result in an F. A my University level courses it would be considered fraud. Canadian Govt used that graph in pamphlet sent to households with no possible way to know different data sets were over laid.
I'd be curious what language in the Wegman report or congressional testimony use think justifies the word "scathing". Nothing I've read satisifes that. Using a little google, I discovered that the denier noise machine has used that word, but if that's your justification, then it's no good. That group has no crediblity and and drips of hyperbole (calling it hyperbole is being generous).
While googling, I found this from a *denier's* letter to the editor: "Allan MacRae’s characterization of the Wegman Report as a “scathing rebuttal of Michael Mann’s hockey-stick graph” inadvertently under cuts the importance of the report. ... Rather than being “scathing”, the report reveals a very sober and serious review of the methodology used ....". (That description fits everything I've heard.)
So are you just repeating what you've read, or can you cite some "scathing" passages?
Cone data + Wegman + overlapping data? That makes no sense. I can't tell if you're talking about Mann's "hockey stick" graph or Jones's "hide the decline" graph. You do understand that they're different graphs that have faced different denier criticisms, right?
The critcism of Mann's graph was over its statistical methods used in its multi-proxy DISTANT temp reconstruction. The critcism of Jones's graph was about switching RECENT measured temps for tree ring proxy temps.
It sounds to me as if you confusedly "merged" these two completely separate topics into the same topic. That's worse than merely not keeping your facts straight; it's being deeply confused about what the issues being discussed even are. Your opinions don't count for much if you *literally* don't know what you're talking about.
Regardless the graph, your fraud charge is flat-out wrong. Fraud was only hinted at for Jones's graph - never Mann's. Fraud can't possibly apply to Jones's graph. You can accuse Jones of not being clear enough about how he generated the graph on that cover-page picture (something that's not even a scientific datum), but that's NOT the same as fraud. First, fraud requires some gain. Second, fraud requires deception, which, as I explained, is hard to maintain since he documented his work.
It's a question of overlaying and switching to instrument data part way though a graph and doing so without scientific justification. So some drought came along and thus we stop using tree data and switch? Why then assume BEFORE that switch that the warming is not due to too much moisture or a change in animals grazing in the area? You have no way of knowing this except that they are ONLY picking data when it goes they way THEY want it to go. This is not science but advocacy when you do this.
Re: "You have no way of knowing this except that they are ONLY picking data when it goes they way THEY want it to go. This is not science but advocacy when you do this."
This is more utter nonsense. People like you making these fraud/hoax type comments against the planet's scientists are merely annoucing that they're easily-led ignorant gullible fools. You should really stop listening to Beck and other rightwing/free-market media, and instead listen to the scientific community.
As I pointed out the Scientific community been warned for years not to use such tree data as a proxy for temperature. Doing so will get yourself in hot water, and the only way they could make this work is by making dubious assumptions and "accepting" the data WHEN it went the way they wanted it to, and when it did not, they DUMPED it. There is no scientific justification for doing this and this means no assumptions of cause and effect can be made here. This type of approach is not defensible.
Re: "As I pointed out the Scientific community been warned for years not to use such tree data as a proxy for temperature"
Warned by who? Auto mechanics? The scientific has vigorous discussions about bounding data errors - to characterize such discussions as warning is misleading. Accusing scientists of using data that comes with error bars is like accusing accountants of adding numbers.
The fact is the use of proxies, despite their uncertainties, is perfectly credible science.
Re: "There is no scientific justification for doing this and this means no assumptions of cause and effect can be made here. This type of approach is not defensible."
That's an utterly ridiculous comment. There's no scientific justification for NOT using data that's KNOWN to be bad? Really? Scientists hsould use data, even when they know it's no good?
Jesus - just think about what you're saying for a moment.
You got this backwards! They ONLY are giving the reasons for when the data was bad and they assume it legitimate when they agreed with them. So you mean this proxy is now bad due to a change in moisture? So how do you know before that there was not excess moisture? So you admit the proxy is not reliable for measuring temperature but is now to be reliable for measuring moisture? Explain to everyone when this proxy became a legitimate moisture proxy and stopped being legitimate temperature proxy!
The temperatures derived from the tree ring proxy data were correlated with actual temperature measurements going back to the 19th century. That's why the scientists use them - it's proven that the method correlates with actual temperatures for a hundred years. The recent correlation (1960's on) breaks down - this is the "divergence problem", and they thnk they have some idea what became different then. The point is, their use of this proxy method is justified.
Re: "No one of sound mind who seeks truth and science would EVER attempt to defend this garbage hockey stick."
Are you of sound mind? Do you seek the truth? Feel free to investigate my statements. You'll find them accurate. If you don't bother to check, but rather continue making the same mistakes, then your statement here will be an example of pure hypocrisy.
Re: "Why attempt to defend something that is just crap and poorly done?"
Mann's hockey stick graph was neither crap nor poorly done. I'm happy to defend that, but only after you've demonstrated the integrity to investigate the facts honestly. That means *not* relying on your usual denier websites to "learn". Such sites are often shamelessly dishonest, and are uniformly misleading. They'll only leave you in your current state - confused and grossly misled by half-truths and lies.
Such practices fail even at high school level. Worse you making the public claim and assumption that this was an "appropriate" overlay of data. Everyone knows that such cone data is WIDELY known to be a POOR proxy for temperatures. Proof in pudding is they had to dump data and overlay with different set of data. Recent study shows that Lamb and cattle grazing in the area has a GREATER effect on ring size then temperature does! No honest person can even BEGIN to support such garbage science.
There is simply no justification for not showing this is two data sets, since the result was copied by many without such knowledge (it was used for propaganda). Worse, there is a assumed concept that the overlay and "switcheroo" of data sets was justified and there is NO SUCH justification here. As pointed out it is GENERAL KNOWLEDGE among science that using this type of reconstruction for temperature is shady and poor and such brisicone data is a poor proxy for temperature is COMMON knowledge.
the whole time planet Earth & every other planet in all the universes have been formed have had major storms,temp changes,floods,ect. without any life on them at all.
it just goes to show us how our Id takes over & makes us think we are more powerful or important to Earth to say we can change the planets makeup with our actions. We have absolutely nothing to do with how a humungus planet works naturally,we are just here going on a ride until we become extinct as a species,the earth will be fine.
@wellguesswhatIthink when you heat CO2saturated water [oceans] it releases CO2 . A 2 year old can do this with 2 open bottles of soda water. Put one in fridge, leave other in sun. Fridge one stays fizzy, sun one goes flat because CO2 escapes fastest.
you fail to see my point. Facto is: global warming will result in an ice age, it's always been like that. Fluctuations in nature lead to the ocean currents changing thus making a new ice age. If we have anything to do with it I don't know. But there is a risk that it can happen. And I think that redistributing wealth is a much better sacrifice than covering the planet with ice. Just think about your options. Either our economic system goes to hell, or the whole planet goes to hell.. You decide
either we risk throwing a gazillion dollars out of the windows by trying to deny global warming when it's just a hoax. Or we continue like we do now. If it's still a hoax, great! If it's not: we're in deep doodo...
Are you really prepared to risk the planet just to save money?
World food bank reports most of basic food increases are due to bio fuels where we burn billions of tons of food in cars while millions of children around the world starve. And Just ignore Al Gore is on Board of carbon trading company? Why spend billions on a problem that does not exist? Huge trading of carbon and carbon taxes lets governments fleece more money out of your pocket for more socialism and your policy and reasoning is killing children around the worlds is what wrong with your idea
@Albertkallal well we don't know if global warming is real or not. I don't know if it's real or not. I do know however the consequences of it if it is real. All I'm asking is; are we really willing to risk another ice age just to get more money? On one side we risk global economic depression, on the other side we risk global ecological disaster. What can I do with more money when more than half of our world lies beneath 10km of ice?
Ice age from global warming? (silly!). We had higher levels of co2 in the past and lower temperatures. (and higher temperatures with less co2 in the past). Oxygen is about 18% of the air. Co2 is only a TINY 0.038 %. That not even one 10th of a %. And of that tiny trace gas in the air man contribution is only 3% compared to nature 97%. It is laughable to state that co2 is a problem unless you buy into the green holy scam of guilt to take your money and redistribute wealth based on this scam.
The green policies we have today are causing starvation around the world as we burn billions of tons of food in cars in place of feeding children. We are seeing food riots today for the first time in about 50 years. This starvation is due to green whack jobs like you pushing their green agenda of bio fuels. There is ZERO proof that man's co2 output will cause warming that will then cause some ice age due to cooling. So on this wild speculation your policy choice is to starve children now?
@Albertkallal you are assuming a little too much. I doubt you count trees as food, or hemp plants as food. Bio energy is not the best option to fossile fuel. But lets face it, in 20-30 years our fossile deposits will be depleeted. Then what?
and I'm not asking for any proof because there is none. However there is no proof that we don't contribute to it neither. So we are in the dark, and we are taking a risk in our choice. Either global economical damage, or global ecological damage.
@Albertkallal just because the carbon taxes allow ppl to use it for greed has no gravity on the science of the situation. Now did the ppl who intended to benefit of the greed create the science? Or are they using the science in order to take advatage of the ppl?
I don't know...but I do believe in sustainability. Does that mean I support every politician's actions due to the hypothesis? hell no!
I think ppl are gonna ruin the idea of taking care of our world by fucking ppl with the fear
Al Gore is selling you how carbon is the devil that we must tax all the while on the board of a carbon trading company. Author of IPCC papers not even peer reviewed without science stated that governments urgently must adopt renewable energy as policy while owning a solar panel company. Parachari has mile long list of conflict interests with IPCC as he fills his pockets. Lie after lie and a quick look at the players we see them filling their pockets by promoting this scam to the public.
I am not sold on Al Gore's "stuff"...but I do believe humans have the ability to alter the planets climate. HOWEVER my main concern is not the climate...its sustainability. The we way we use resources as if they are infinite is appauling to me. The native american's had a wonderful philosophy: make your decisions in respect to 3 generations after you. If we did that, the world would be a different place.
We doing well in terms of resources. We have more trees and green today then 100 years ago in the US. The natives did not have water bombers and modern fire fighting equipment (fire could burn for years the whole country). Every pollution index from air to water is much cleaner today than 30 years ago. We are closing down manufacturing plants every week. Only places like China treat the earth like a sewer and are not running in a sustainable manor but here North America we doing rather well.
@Albertkallal I think that is a very nieve point of view. We are not doing well when it comes to resources. We consume resources at an astounding rate in comparison to the rest of the world. More trees today than 100 yrs ago? I have a hard time swallowing that stat. It is quite a stretch to say we are doing "rather well".
Greenhouse effect is out of question. I firmly believe we somehow heightened it with all our expense in the last half millenia. Check history: our ancestors DIDN'T burned as much fossil fuels as we do now.
@smallville2490 Then again human race has only been here for 2 million years. And we've only been burning fossil fuels in the last 100 years or so. The CO2 in the atmosphere was tens of times higher before humans even existed, who burned the fuel? The dinosaurs? And C02 isn't bad, plants need it to make their food! We need it to make some of our food as well. Thats why plants grew so immensely during prehistory.
@stefanoGFsiciliano to say that (excessive) CO2 isn't bad doesn't make sense to me. It is an established science that it traps heat. I've been learning that since grade- school. By the way, I've never heard any of Al Gore since I stumbled his movie weeks ago. And I see nothing wrong about energy conservation and innovation that he suggested either.
Of course... as long as the human race can convince itself that it's inocent and hasn't done a thing to accellerate climate change we can all go about our lives happily knowing, thinking everything will be fine. wake up you idiots. China and america are two of the largest consumers on the planet, guzzling down more fossil fuels than any other, filling the atmosphere with billions of tons of CO2. I'd present a graph but I fear that some of you pig-ignorants would just dismiss it as propaganda.
When you say all that co2 we are outputting, how much are we outputting compared to nature? Obviously you've not bothered to even learn what percentage of the atmosphere is co2. To put this in perspective oxygen is about 18% of the atmosphere and co2 is 0.038%. We talking about hundreds of a percent and of THAT small tiny amount man only output 3% of the total. We not seeing warming as predicted and this socialists left greens cooking up new tax scams to fleece more money out of your pockets.
@Albertkallal And what makes you think I didn't know that? You do realize that the atmosphere as well as the biosphere are increadably delicatly balanced, don't you? I have to admit that with ice core samples going back as far as they do it is clearly evident that Climate change is a natural proccess that has happened many times before. However, that does not change the fact that CO2 output (as well as methane output from farmed cows) has tipped the delicate scale of the atmosphere somewhat.
Hard to argue we upset huge balance with an output of 3% of co2. We had higher levels co2 and colder temperatures in the past and also lower levels of co2 and higher temperatures. Polar bears did fine and plants have responded to this extra co2. Even Phil Jones admitted warming rates today are not different then last two warming periods. The first coat of paint on a window is much like CO2 and it done most it effects. CO2 is not driving temperatures as claimed Gore's and crooks at the UN.
@Albertkallal It is true that CO2 has not driven temperature before. As temp goes up by about 0.5oC (from Milankovitch cycles) nature releases more CO2 (by a tiny amount - say close to 3%), causing temp to rise more, then more CO2 and on and on until the tipping point is breached. So temp drives CO2, then CO2 drives temp ect. What is happening now is the same but without the initial trigger of temp rise. We have started the spiral by releasing CO2, simply skipping the first step of temp rise.
We do not see temperatures rising first in the atmosphere as predicted by GHG but only on the ground first? (that is backwards!). Worse is we are not seeing a different rate of warming now then last two warming cycles (they are 66 years as a pair). More damming is GIS/Hansen's corrections to previous sets of data made then appear cooler. It is outright stupid to accept co2 driving temps when we not seeing warming rates as predicted by the carbon trader Gore and his green crooks at the IPCC.
@Albertkallal Ok i now have know idea what you're even trying to say, and i'm bored of all this shit. I just want to know why you are so desperate to disprove global warming? Whether Gore is right or not it's obvious that changing the balance of our world is bad, destroying ecosystems is bad, forcing species to go extinct faster than new ones can evolve is bad. Besides fossil fuels are gunna run out. We might as well work on developing a more sustainable fuel now.
@Albertkallal Ok then. you sit down and look at a tempreture map of say the last few thousand years. then look at a map of CO2 present in the atmosphere for the same period. While gore is saying to get hte point across I would agree with you to a degree. CO2 doesn't drive tempretures but it does affect them. Also I never said it upset a 'huge balance' I said it upset a 'delicate balance'. would it be right to assume that you don't believe CO2 has an effect on the atmosphere?
@Rora989 hmmmm did YOU denounce this as propaganda you pig-ignorant lmao.... you are a wack job... btw everyone even libs tree hugging wack jobs like yourself can agree that the temperature hasnt changed in more than 10 years... what happened there??? musta been george bush lmao
@kbx300 I'm really not too sure what you're saying... though I understood the part where you said that everyone agrees tempretures havn't changed. and out of interest where is your evidence for this.
Also, I don't see what being liberal has to do with this and besides, I'm not liberal
The Associated Press contacted more than 100 climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. All 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie said that Gore accurately conveyed the science, with few errors- The Washington Post.
The Associated Press contacted more than 100 climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. All 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie said that Gore accurately conveyed the science, with few errors- The Washington Post.
p.s. What makes you think i'm a "socialist". Does listening to scientists make me "socialist", does being anti-sustainability make you a non socialist?
You do realise that you are allowing your dislike of policies to cloud your objectivity. You are attacking the science because of the policies that resulted are not to your liking, that's very dishonest of you. Do you cheer when you see someone starving? judging by your comments it would seem so. I expect you dislike freedom of speech too.
Jumping into a tank and firing bullets on behalf of the National Socialist party does not mean you believe you are a NAZI, but would be supporting them anyway. You attempting to support Gores gross and large list of errors and throw truth under the bus means you look the other way with your honesty and integrity. Does not matter if you think your socialist, you support their position by doing this. Note I NOT talking about your support of AGW but about your support of lies in science.
@Albertkallal Do you include Al gore in your list of socialists because it's odd how he is so rich if he is a socialist. I am merely pointing out the fact that there were only two errors by Gore and the film was broadly accurate. Please name the errors you claim apart from the two I have listed?
You need to learn the popular acronym national socialist that describes people like Gore. Gore policy not only enslaves you like a farm animal with these types of taxation systems, but he also on the board of a carbon trading company after selling you that tax. Gore's support of free trade again is a policy that transfers rights from the people to the international banksters and corporate elites that sell out their country and people to not only fill their pockets, but makes you a slave to them.
Gores wrong claims due to AGW. Sea level will rise 20 feet (wrong). Pacific islands drowning (wrong). Thermohaline circulation "stopping" (wrong). Graph in movie shows co2 driving temperature (wrong graph shows reverse). Hurricane Katrina "man made"(wrong). Polar bears "dying" (wrong, population has increased from 5000 to 25000). Japanese typhoons "a new record" (wrong, not record). Hurricanes "getting stronger" (wrong). Sahara desert "drying" (wrong). West Nile virus spread in the US (wrong).
@Albertkallal i'm now going to reply to your comment one part at a time starting with Hurricanes. The duration and strength of hurricanes have increased by about 50 percent over the last three decades, according to study author Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. It was in "Nature" journal . Also see Emanuel, Kerry (2008). "The Hurricane-Climate Connection" Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 89 (5).
A simple 30 year period unless compared to previous periods does NOT prove we historically are seeing more intensive hurricanes but ONLY so in a 30 THAT year 30 year period. The previous year warming periods also saw changes in hurricane intensity. Worse paper does not make the same claim as Gore that man's co2 caused this. Gore did not just make the statement about hurricanes, but said that man's co2 caused this and that not stated in that paper.
@Albertkallal Only a non scientist would ask for "proof". Proof is an unscientific term. To say a theory is proven is crazy as it implies that no amount of new contradictory evidence will change the theory. That is why i stated at the start that AGW is the most likely explanation for the majority of recent warming since the 1970's. What explanation would you give for more intense hurricanes than a temp/energy content increase?
You are asking us for an act of faith based on Gore's witness to something of which science does not support. Sea level increase is NOT accelerating. IPCC just removed their ridiculous claim of 50 million refugees due to AGW. Frequency of record temperatures is lower today then 1930s. Strong and violent tornados are down from the 1970's. Global tropical cyclone activity is lowest in 30 years, why?. One statement about a strong storm and you make an act of faith on your part that this is AGW?
@Albertkallal Nope, i'm asking you to stop assuming Gore is the only person in all this and read some scientific papers instead of blogs. Observed sea levels are actually tracking at the upper range of the IPCC projections. When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres. See (Vermeer 2009)/(Allison et al 2009).
Care to name some scientific sources for your other comments?
@checkyoursources Well said. However I am making an act of faith Albertkallal. Not in Al Gore but myself. My faith does not require you to believe in what I believe. I believe that climate change will continue until we have murdered the very thing that gave us life: Earth. But I have faith in the ability of humanity to stop this catastrophe. A SELFLESSLY UNITED mankind can stop any threat. Especially when the real threat in question is greed. If all you will see is data, it looks like this: $.
Again a meaning less paper unless you can explain why parts of the world are not seeing the same rise in sea levels? Somehow we are to believe in "smart water" that does not flow to its Equilibrium and therefore the rates a sea level are going to be different in parts of the world? Rates of sea level change have not changed and that study ONLY shows a measurement of sea level, not a change in the rates DUE TO CO2 as Gore claims. They are measuring Continental shift in land not the sea level.
@Albertkallal Bruce C. Douglas (1997). "Global Sea Rise: A Redetermination". Surveys in Geophysics 18
Church, John; White, Neil (January 6, 2006). "A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise". Geophysical Research Letters 33 Bindoff, N.L. et al (2007)."Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level".
Sea level varies due to gravity/temp/pressure differences in different parts of the world and because the Earth is not a perfect sphere.
@Albertkallal On polar bears: According to a 2009 report by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, of the 19 recognised subpopulations of polar bears, 8 are in decline, 1 is increasing, 3 are stable and 7 don’t have enough data to draw any conclusions. The 2005 report showed a lower % of declining populations than 2009 i.e. the number of declining populations has increased.
@Albertkallal On CO2: CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. I have to go now, but i'll finish this list of counter points later, don't go deleting my posts, it would be admitting defeat on your part and dishonest to boot.
With out a time scale then is it NOT PROOF of man's co2 caused this. ANY science data without stating or assuming a time frame is dishonest. Not sure who is worse, Gore or your attempting to defend this type of dis-honesty? Why are you trying to support such dishonest viewpoints then? Any reasonable person would conclude that this meant current time frames and the judge in the UK courts cause stated as such. The real issue is why are you not being reasonable and supporting such dishonesty?
@Albertkallal Lets state what Gore implied: Gore discusses the possibility of the collapse of a major ice sheet in Greenland or in West Antarctica, either of which could raise global sea levels by approximately 20 feet (6 m). Are you denying that a temp rise that caused a mjor ice sheet collapse would not cause a rise this big? He couldn't put a timescale on it because we don't know how melting will accelerate over the next century. It would've been dishonest to include a timescale.
And what criteria row are using to make this judgment? In other words we now in place of trusting Beck are now to trust your character! So now you have become the all seeing and all knowing universal judge of who we are to accept as a quack and not? In other words you have now become the judge and jury here? So now you become the universal holy being and deity whose job it is to go around on the Internet and make a judgment on everybody else but yourself? Right, got it!
Why read papers when they refuse to correct their own errors. The peer review community gave Gore the Nobel prize and gave their peer review to his movie. However I have to go to Lord Monckton's site to find the 30 gross errors. So I will gladly go read those papers when you direct me to the peer reviewed corrections. For what reason is peer review any good if they do not correct anything and I am forced to Monckton's site to find gross errors that the science community refuses to correct?
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel Prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel Prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give AlGore the Nobel Prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel Prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie.
The peerreview you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peerreview science community voted to give Gore the Nobel Prize and they gave their peerreview authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peers site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel Prize and they gave their review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peers site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel Prize and they gave their review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peers site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel Prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the nobel prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie.
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give gore the nobel prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the nobel prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Moncktons site to find 30 gross errors and yet YOU CANNOT send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet YOU CANNOT send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to "why" is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science. Al Gore's film was "broadly accurate" according to an expert witness called when an attempt by deniers was made through the courts to prevent the film being shown in schools.
They are not minor errors but rather huge ones. People in other fields such as doctors or financial people go to jail when such large errors are made. Science community threw their support and credibility behind that movie and to Gore by giving him the Nobel Prize. The idea then that no corrections need to be issued is absolute brain dead on your part. Thus no self-review and no correcting is occurring in the science community but only a wiliness to be politically correct. A rather sad situation
c02 does not rise temp? lol! i had science and biology in high school .. and that is what they taught us, if that is wrong theeen I guess there is a problem with our curriculums in school??
people deny global warming because they are scared of it and they know what will happen in the end. They just want to live without fear so the government pay people to say otherwise
Increase in CO2 levels is normal when temperature rises and vice-versa, i.e., when dangerous levels of CO2 are sent to the atmosphere, the temperature rises. What really matters is that the natural cycles of average earth temperature, are increasing extremely fast, due to our wrong attitude and conduct.
High polluting nations, like USA or China, refuse to sign environment respecting treaties, because they want to be strong economies, without regarding the consequences. Trolling is what USA does.
How is the USA high polluting when they are closing down manufacturing plants every week? First time since 1940's we saw a drop in miles driven. USA is doing their part by closing down manufacturing every week. In China we see a new coal plant going up every two weeks. Every measure of air, water, food quality has been continuously getting better in the USA. The only place treating the world like a cesspool is China. In fact people are sick and dying around the world largest solar plant in china
CO2 is not pollution and is the wonderful stuff that your potatoes feed on to convert co2 into carbohydrates which is then food for us humans. China has surpassed the USA in BOTH car sales and co2 output. In steel production USA is 5 times less polluting and use half or even less energy for steel. USA air quality has CONSTANT improved for last 30 years. China treats the world like a sewer and there are sick from pollution. We should not be trading with these gross polluters like China.
The USA is high polluting because it is one of the richest countries. the USA simply has more people that use cars than anywhere else in the world, have more factories, and use the most oil. the USA alone, is responsible for more than 40% of all Co2 that goes into the atmosphere, based on emissions in quantity. Most other countries are responsible for less than 5%. the USA ALSO, refuses to sell cars that get better gas millage because that's where the USA makes their money from.
CO2 is not a pollution but is plant food. Recent studies show that we have seen some nice increases in plants due to co2 and there are more trees today in USA the 100 years ago (when a forest fire could burn for years on end). China now buys more cars then USA. Worse is we use half or even less energy to make steel with FAR less pollution then China. We have best standards and enjoy the cleanest air, water and food. It is only places like China that now pollute and treat the world like a sewer.
i'm sorry but if you have to much plant food, it wont eat it all up, and there will be to much left over, which causes the rising problems of the future. regardless of who does the most polluting, its still bad. your trying to say something along the lines of, it doesn't matter how much i run, i wont get tired and break down. you can only eat so much at a time, yes? i don't think you could eat all the cows in the world at once, correct? plants can't either.....(continue...)
Trying to be silly here? You can over water a plant but Water is not a pollutant. Amount of co2 in the air amounts to less than 0.04% (correct - less than 4/100ths of a percent and thus plants are starving for co2). Man outputs only 3% of that 0.04% (tiny amount). Oxygen is 18% vs. that tiny 0.04% of co2. Commercial greenhouses use 3-4 times or more co2 levels to promote plant growth and natural co2 amounts results in cruelty to plants and starving them of their rightful amounts of co2.
@Albertkallal The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any. CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year due to human emissions.
And that extra co2 is causing more green plants to grow. After all, if you love trees, then why not give them more food? Why be cruel to those trees? The tree huggers should be happy that their trees are now being given more food. The redwoods in CA show quite a nice growth increase and we see more green and trees today than 100 years ago. On the other hand going back just 300 years, a fire could rage on for years since the natives did not have water bombers and modern fire fighting equipment.
@Albertkallal High CO2 levels have associated effects which outweigh the benefits e.g.: Read: Decline in rice yields due to warmer nighttime minimum temperatures (Peng 2004, Tao 2008), Decline in global phytoplankton (Boyce 2010)
Decline in global net primary production - the amount of carbon absorbed by plants (Zhao 2010), Inhibiting plankton development, disruption of carbon cycle (Turley 2005).
Says who there not net benefits co2? These lying scumbags been wrong on EVERY SINGLE prediction. MET stated that cold winters and lots of snow would be thing of past (wrong). An increase in storms? (again wrong). Increase in malaria (wrong again). An increase in the "rate" of sea level rise (again wrong) They state "insert your favorite political crap garbage statement" of the day. They NEVER correct wrong science statements and throw truth under the bus in the name of politics and socialism.
Until we see self-correcting science and you direct me to a site that corrects these lies by the science community then your motivation is suspect. Your credibility does not exist until you direct to a site that corrects these huge science errors. So I go to a site by Lord Monckton to find out these gross and huge and massive incorrect science statements? Until you direct me to that site that corrects their errors then you are just a prostitute and you have no desire to correct your errors.
@Albertkallal Lord Monkeytown is a buffoon. If you want to listen to a man who wanted everyone with AIDS rounded up and placed in concentration camps then that's your issue. Monkeytown has no scientific qualifications. Care to name even one peer reviewed paper by him that was actually published?
Every government and health organization around the world has always held up legitimate right of quarantining parts of the population when diseases threaten the general population. When it was learned how AIDS was transmitted and what kind of infectious threat it would be to the general population then governments realized that quarantine was not necessary. Quite laughable you try to spin the basic position that Moncton had that was the same postion from every health organization on the planet.
As I pointed out until you can direct me to some peer reviewed site that corrects all these errors then you failed to explain why I should accept papers from people that refuse to correct their errors? Why would I accept papers that are wrong and have incorrect science? Why stand here and tell me to accept papers that lie and are incorrect? I am still waiting for you to direct me to those peer reviewed papers that correct all these errors and until you do that you do not have a leg to stand on.
i dont care whoever get rich out of this, i just want a better place to live.
malaysiancommenting 1 day ago
@malaysiancommenting We see food riots around the world for the first time in years. Governments sold crazy notion of burning food in cars based on being green and politically correct. Bio fuels starve children. Spending 20+ billion on stupid man's co2 is big false warming is only their excuse to tax and trade carbon. Spending 20 billion on a non-problem means we wasted huge amounts of resources and money that is not solving our problems or feeding the poor of the world
Albertkallal 23 hours ago
Thses guys say that the world is warmer because of humans,please.Al Gore says this and he has a grave face saying it omg he says we are going to run out of fresh water,LIKE IT'S GONNA STOP RAINING LOL.It has been proven that from the begining of time,there is the same amount of fresh and salty water on earth there has allways been.Stop scaring people to make money!!!!!
trebor3863 3 weeks ago
I HAVE NEVER READ SO MUCH CRAP IN MY LIFE. These guys clearly aren't even scientifically legitimate and have no proof of actually conducting scientific work. I can't believe some people would go out of their way to fool the public like this.
101brawlfan 1 month ago
And what text or statement is it you are disagreeing with? I mean this response of yours has no scientific thinking or logical reasoning and is not based on science. Because your response has no science in it, does that mean what you stated here is not to be trusted and is completely invalidated? In other words based on your own logic we should not be listening to your statements here because they are not science? So we must make an act of faith to believe in what you say here?
Albertkallal 1 month ago
oooohh you ffing estadounidenses (not including the ones on Gore's side).. since it's not convenient for you because you would have to leave your world of comfortability and unlimited use of the planet, That is why you guys make these kind of videos. You're just like the people mentioned in the documentary itself: those whose salary depends on "not understanding it"
terminosdel 2 months ago
Last time I looked it was Al Gore flying around in private jets, leaving chauffeured limousines running while giving speechs for you to become poor while laughing to the bank as he sits On the Board of co2 trading company. If these guys could trade and tax your glass of water and you're stupid enough to let them do it then they will fleece your pockets even more. Carbon has freed us from living in cold dirty caves and using wood to cook our food. The hypocrisy of Gore and you is astounding
Albertkallal 2 months ago
hahahaha, google any of the "experts" referenced herein and see who pays their salaries.
But, for a real laugh, google the "oregon petition."
There is a reason Faux news is for stupid people and Republicans. They assume you know nothing and will be persuaded by liars like Glenn Beck.
Good on you, keep believe _____ like this, you deserve it.
Jerque2012 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How is this communist douche a Noble laureate?
penisinzipper 3 months ago
You can't argue with some of his statistics. I mean...his proof is RIGHT THERE. Of course you're qualified to do research of your own, and you should, but really what he's saying should be taken into consideration of your own opinion. Use common sense: don't completely absorb what one person is saying and refuse to listen to the other. That is ignorance.
BlazeinTheMorningDew 3 months ago
@BlazeinTheMorningDew yea his own stats show that co2 lags behind temperature by 800 years disproving his own theory
tippman2k01 3 months ago
Love Glen Beck!! The truth lives here!
17douga 4 months ago
buying a mansion on the beach has no relevance to downtown manhattan being under water as it was yesterday. my point was to show that there IS a likelyhood of this happening.
see potholer54 on youtube- climate change, gore vs durkin (and all his other videos if you wanna learn some great stufff)
elipto 5 months ago
05:33 - 6:00
funny how the "likelyhood of this is next to nill"
and now im seeing the east river in manhattan over-flowing.
it's fucking idiots like these and the people who post these videos that are full of crap
elipto 5 months ago
@elipto --- very true, before AGW theory, rivers never crested or overflowed. nor did hurricanes happen or tornadoes or any other weather event
prior to 1980, the planet never had a flood, tornado, hurricane, drought, or anything
life was perfect
thats why when you see any sign of a flood now, you know global warming is true and everyone else out there is an idiot
Nightverslonn 3 months ago
@Nightverslonn your an idiot, please check history on the world, not just inland america. Know your history, go back to school, study geology.
TheFokmaster 1 month ago
you must feel sooo stupid now.
irene is fake too right?
elipto 5 months ago
@elipto
Hurricanes have been around for thousands of years, and Irene compared to many Hurricanes 10 years or so ago, wasn't that bad. There is some truth to climate change(Pollution, destruction of fossil fuels,etc) however, for a guy so worried about man-made global warming(Al Gore) didn't stop him from purchasing a mansion on the beach.
TheJosephPrice 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you haven’t seen it watch “The Obama Deception HQ Full Length Version” now on youtube and (if you like it) please RE-POST to every youtube video you can find the time to. :) We need real change and it starts with getting the truth out there. Bachmann, Perry and Romney would just be more of the same..
R.P. 2012
stopcorporatemedia 5 months ago
Comment removed
mustbemyluck 5 months ago
al gore is a pile of shit.
Trashfished 5 months ago
the sun is currently in its highest peek of its solar cycle... i personally think the earth's climate adjusts with the sun solar cycle.
bizzYpiffeDuP 5 months ago
Re: "... by making dubious assumptions and "accepting" the data WHEN it went the way they wanted it to, and when it did not, they DUMPED it"
That's a ridiculous characterization. The proxy data is KNOWN reliable over time spans, and known unreliable over a briefer time span. The scientists openly noted, investigated (and have many good ideas about) the reasons for this "divergence probelm".
You think the fact that they don't use KNOWN bad data indicates some kind of deception?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 5 months ago
Chris Horner: "Since the 3rd UN report, for which this was the smoking gun, there's been a 4th UN report. Does anybody see a hockey stick in there anywhere? I can't see ya! It's not in there. Guess what: it's air-brushed out - in classic fashion - and they don't even mention why it's not here. What hockey stick? I didn't see any hockey stick."
Denier lies: AR4 WG1 Sec 6.6.1.1 "What Do Reconstructions Based on Palaeoclimatic Proxies Show?" has graphs (Figure 6.10) and discusses the hockey stick.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
Golly, if they put it back in, then things are MUCH worse than we thought! If there ever been a graph based on garbage that mockery stick wins the prize here. Splicing data from two different sources and basing such a poster child graph on about 12 trees is beyond insane. If you think the IPCC is the poster child of honesty then you must be paid with subsides from choo choo train Pachari who is in fraud and money grab schemes worse then Mr. carbon trader Al Gore. You cannot be serious here!
Albertkallal 6 months ago
@Albertkallal
Re: "Golly, if they put it back in, then things are MUCH worse than we thought!"
I didn't say they put it back in. I said Chris Horner lied - it was always there.
Re: "If there ever been a graph based on garbage that mockery stick wins the prize here."
If you read only denier bs, that's the "obvious" conclusion. If instead you read seeking the truth, you'd discover that its justification was perfectly credible - an imperfect early long reconstruction, true, but not "garbage".
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
Re: "Splicing data from two different sources and basing such a poster child graph on about 12 trees is beyond insane."
1) That it became the "posterchild" wasn't the author's doing.
2) Actually, given the necessary errors when relying on proxies, the more sources the better.
3) You judge it as "beyond insane" - fine. Scientists disagreed.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
(cont)
Re: "If you think the IPCC is the poster child of honesty then you must be paid with subsides from choo choo train Pachari who is in fraud and money grab schemes worse then Mr. carbon trader Al Gore."
Conspiracy theorists, who uncritically swallow the denier propaganda that smears the science (and the people doing or conveying the science) and fabricates absurd conspiracies, continually prove that their judgment and understanding of the REAL world is garbage.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
(cont)
Re: "You cannot be serious here!"
I'm quite serious. Chris Horner lied. He said - mockingly even - that the hockey stick graph, and a discussion of it, was nowhere to be found in the IPCC's 4th report. As I stated (and cited!) before, that's a bold-faced lie, pure and simple.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
(cont)
I sure feel sorry for anyone who paid their hard-earned money, and invested their precious time, on Chris Horner's book "The Politically Incorrect Guide To Global Warming". However, they should've expected as much, since deceit is politically incorrect!
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
Some tree ring data starting going the wrong way so they chopped in and overlaid some instrument data at point on the graph to hide a decline. Only dishonest people would come here to defend such garbage. National of council of statistics during testimony to Congress was scathing as to how inappropriate such use of data was. No one of sound mind who seeks truth and science would EVER attempt to defend this garbage hockey stick. Why attempt to defend something that is just crap and poorly done?
Albertkallal 6 months ago
@Albertkallal
Re: "Some tree ring data starting going the wrong way so they chopped in and overlaid some instrument data at point on the graph to hide a decline."
The innocuous facts about "hide the decline":
1. The "divergence problem" was openly documented.
2. That "climate-gate" sentence referred to a graph on a cover page of a report. It was meant as a fair representation of our best understanding of the planet's temp history, so appropriately excluded the region of known-wrong data.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
(cont)
3. That the graph contained data as well as the tree ring data was documented in the report.
4. That the graph included data additional to the cited tree-ring paper was patently obvious from the graph itself, as it included temps for years AFTER the date of cited paper (if that's intentional deception, then it's the dumbest attempt ever!)
Put that all together and there's nothing secret, deceptive, or inappropriate about Jones's graph.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
(cont)
Finally, this has nothing to do with Mann's hockey stick graph. "Hide the decline" appears in an email discussing Jones's graph, not Mann's. It does refer to using Mann's "Nature trick" (trick meaning technique/approach), but again, the criticisms of Mann's hockey stick have nothing to do with this "trick".
You've gotten yourself very confused about all these matters - you've jumbled your denier talking-points into a collage of mixed up facts and events.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
@Albertkallal
Re: "Only dishonest people would come here to defend such garbage."
I've only defended the actual truth against the misrepresentations and slanders spread by many of the deniers (which does not necessarily include you, as your errors might be honest mistakes and confusions).
If you're accussing me of being dishonest, you should first have good reason - or it's your own character that's called into question.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
@Albertkallal
Re: "National of council of statistics during testimony to Congress was scathing as to how inappropriate such use of data was"
1. There is no National Council of Statistics in the USA.
2. I assume you intended the Wegman Report, the congressionally commissoned report into Mann's paper authored by 3 statisticians. (I'll ignore commenting on Rep Joe Barton, other than to call him a disgusting human being)
3. The Wegman Report had criticisms, but was not "scathing" as you claimed.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
(cont)
4. Some conclusions of Wegman Report themselves came under criticism from some in the scientific community. The report wasn't written by scientists and didn't undergo peer review.
5. So it was a critical, but not scathing, report from non-scientists that wasn't peer-reviewed, and when released faced some serious criticism itself. Furthermore, it was commissioned by a Big Oil congressman and was put to transparent political use in Congress.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
(cont)
6. There was another report on Mann's hockey stick released at about the same time. I assume you were confusing the name "National Council of Statistics" with the name "National Research Council", the NRC. It's a part of The National Academies of Sciences, and it also released a report on Mann's work.
7. The NRC report, written by scientists, also had some provisos and criticisms about Mann's work, but overall generally endorsed the crediblity and principle conclusions of his paper.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
Most happy to be corrected that it was not a Academy, fine be it National Council of Satiations and YES their review was SCATHING of the methodology used in their testimony before congress. At my college level courses such overlying of data sets without this clearly being marked would result in an F. A my University level courses it would be considered fraud. Canadian Govt used that graph in pamphlet sent to households with no possible way to know different data sets were over laid.
Albertkallal 6 months ago
@Albertkallal
I'd be curious what language in the Wegman report or congressional testimony use think justifies the word "scathing". Nothing I've read satisifes that. Using a little google, I discovered that the denier noise machine has used that word, but if that's your justification, then it's no good. That group has no crediblity and and drips of hyperbole (calling it hyperbole is being generous).
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
(cont)
While googling, I found this from a *denier's* letter to the editor: "Allan MacRae’s characterization of the Wegman Report as a “scathing rebuttal of Michael Mann’s hockey-stick graph” inadvertently under cuts the importance of the report. ... Rather than being “scathing”, the report reveals a very sober and serious review of the methodology used ....". (That description fits everything I've heard.)
So are you just repeating what you've read, or can you cite some "scathing" passages?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
@Albertkallal
Cone data + Wegman + overlapping data? That makes no sense. I can't tell if you're talking about Mann's "hockey stick" graph or Jones's "hide the decline" graph. You do understand that they're different graphs that have faced different denier criticisms, right?
The critcism of Mann's graph was over its statistical methods used in its multi-proxy DISTANT temp reconstruction. The critcism of Jones's graph was about switching RECENT measured temps for tree ring proxy temps.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
(cont)
It sounds to me as if you confusedly "merged" these two completely separate topics into the same topic. That's worse than merely not keeping your facts straight; it's being deeply confused about what the issues being discussed even are. Your opinions don't count for much if you *literally* don't know what you're talking about.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
(cont)
Regardless the graph, your fraud charge is flat-out wrong. Fraud was only hinted at for Jones's graph - never Mann's. Fraud can't possibly apply to Jones's graph. You can accuse Jones of not being clear enough about how he generated the graph on that cover-page picture (something that's not even a scientific datum), but that's NOT the same as fraud. First, fraud requires some gain. Second, fraud requires deception, which, as I explained, is hard to maintain since he documented his work.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
It's a question of overlaying and switching to instrument data part way though a graph and doing so without scientific justification. So some drought came along and thus we stop using tree data and switch? Why then assume BEFORE that switch that the warming is not due to too much moisture or a change in animals grazing in the area? You have no way of knowing this except that they are ONLY picking data when it goes they way THEY want it to go. This is not science but advocacy when you do this.
Albertkallal 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Albertkallal
Re: "You have no way of knowing this except that they are ONLY picking data when it goes they way THEY want it to go. This is not science but advocacy when you do this."
This is more utter nonsense. People like you making these fraud/hoax type comments against the planet's scientists are merely annoucing that they're easily-led ignorant gullible fools. You should really stop listening to Beck and other rightwing/free-market media, and instead listen to the scientific community.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 5 months ago
As I pointed out the Scientific community been warned for years not to use such tree data as a proxy for temperature. Doing so will get yourself in hot water, and the only way they could make this work is by making dubious assumptions and "accepting" the data WHEN it went the way they wanted it to, and when it did not, they DUMPED it. There is no scientific justification for doing this and this means no assumptions of cause and effect can be made here. This type of approach is not defensible.
Albertkallal 5 months ago
@Albertkallal
Re: "As I pointed out the Scientific community been warned for years not to use such tree data as a proxy for temperature"
Warned by who? Auto mechanics? The scientific has vigorous discussions about bounding data errors - to characterize such discussions as warning is misleading. Accusing scientists of using data that comes with error bars is like accusing accountants of adding numbers.
The fact is the use of proxies, despite their uncertainties, is perfectly credible science.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 5 months ago
@Albertkallal
Re: "There is no scientific justification for doing this and this means no assumptions of cause and effect can be made here. This type of approach is not defensible."
That's an utterly ridiculous comment. There's no scientific justification for NOT using data that's KNOWN to be bad? Really? Scientists hsould use data, even when they know it's no good?
Jesus - just think about what you're saying for a moment.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 5 months ago
You got this backwards! They ONLY are giving the reasons for when the data was bad and they assume it legitimate when they agreed with them. So you mean this proxy is now bad due to a change in moisture? So how do you know before that there was not excess moisture? So you admit the proxy is not reliable for measuring temperature but is now to be reliable for measuring moisture? Explain to everyone when this proxy became a legitimate moisture proxy and stopped being legitimate temperature proxy!
Albertkallal 5 months ago
@Albertkallal
The temperatures derived from the tree ring proxy data were correlated with actual temperature measurements going back to the 19th century. That's why the scientists use them - it's proven that the method correlates with actual temperatures for a hundred years. The recent correlation (1960's on) breaks down - this is the "divergence problem", and they thnk they have some idea what became different then. The point is, their use of this proxy method is justified.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 5 months ago
@Albertkallal
Re: "No one of sound mind who seeks truth and science would EVER attempt to defend this garbage hockey stick."
Are you of sound mind? Do you seek the truth? Feel free to investigate my statements. You'll find them accurate. If you don't bother to check, but rather continue making the same mistakes, then your statement here will be an example of pure hypocrisy.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
@Albertkallal
Re: "Why attempt to defend something that is just crap and poorly done?"
Mann's hockey stick graph was neither crap nor poorly done. I'm happy to defend that, but only after you've demonstrated the integrity to investigate the facts honestly. That means *not* relying on your usual denier websites to "learn". Such sites are often shamelessly dishonest, and are uniformly misleading. They'll only leave you in your current state - confused and grossly misled by half-truths and lies.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
Such practices fail even at high school level. Worse you making the public claim and assumption that this was an "appropriate" overlay of data. Everyone knows that such cone data is WIDELY known to be a POOR proxy for temperatures. Proof in pudding is they had to dump data and overlay with different set of data. Recent study shows that Lamb and cattle grazing in the area has a GREATER effect on ring size then temperature does! No honest person can even BEGIN to support such garbage science.
Albertkallal 6 months ago
There is simply no justification for not showing this is two data sets, since the result was copied by many without such knowledge (it was used for propaganda). Worse, there is a assumed concept that the overlay and "switcheroo" of data sets was justified and there is NO SUCH justification here. As pointed out it is GENERAL KNOWLEDGE among science that using this type of reconstruction for temperature is shady and poor and such brisicone data is a poor proxy for temperature is COMMON knowledge.
Albertkallal 6 months ago
the whole time planet Earth & every other planet in all the universes have been formed have had major storms,temp changes,floods,ect. without any life on them at all.
it just goes to show us how our Id takes over & makes us think we are more powerful or important to Earth to say we can change the planets makeup with our actions. We have absolutely nothing to do with how a humungus planet works naturally,we are just here going on a ride until we become extinct as a species,the earth will be fine.
rrrjjjmmm100 7 months ago
heat changes the CO2.....how? CO2 is supposed to wrap the atmosphere in gas and warm up the planet, how does heat itself increase the CO2?
wellguesswhatIthink 7 months ago
@wellguesswhatIthink when you heat CO2saturated water [oceans] it releases CO2 . A 2 year old can do this with 2 open bottles of soda water. Put one in fridge, leave other in sun. Fridge one stays fizzy, sun one goes flat because CO2 escapes fastest.
jackolan76 6 months ago
Al gore fails we all die in 2012 xD
chomper720 7 months ago
you fail to see my point. Facto is: global warming will result in an ice age, it's always been like that. Fluctuations in nature lead to the ocean currents changing thus making a new ice age. If we have anything to do with it I don't know. But there is a risk that it can happen. And I think that redistributing wealth is a much better sacrifice than covering the planet with ice. Just think about your options. Either our economic system goes to hell, or the whole planet goes to hell.. You decide
Lighthammer18 8 months ago
either we risk throwing a gazillion dollars out of the windows by trying to deny global warming when it's just a hoax. Or we continue like we do now. If it's still a hoax, great! If it's not: we're in deep doodo...
Are you really prepared to risk the planet just to save money?
Lighthammer18 8 months ago
World food bank reports most of basic food increases are due to bio fuels where we burn billions of tons of food in cars while millions of children around the world starve. And Just ignore Al Gore is on Board of carbon trading company? Why spend billions on a problem that does not exist? Huge trading of carbon and carbon taxes lets governments fleece more money out of your pocket for more socialism and your policy and reasoning is killing children around the worlds is what wrong with your idea
Albertkallal 8 months ago
@Albertkallal well we don't know if global warming is real or not. I don't know if it's real or not. I do know however the consequences of it if it is real. All I'm asking is; are we really willing to risk another ice age just to get more money? On one side we risk global economic depression, on the other side we risk global ecological disaster. What can I do with more money when more than half of our world lies beneath 10km of ice?
Lighthammer18 8 months ago
Ice age from global warming? (silly!). We had higher levels of co2 in the past and lower temperatures. (and higher temperatures with less co2 in the past). Oxygen is about 18% of the air. Co2 is only a TINY 0.038 %. That not even one 10th of a %. And of that tiny trace gas in the air man contribution is only 3% compared to nature 97%. It is laughable to state that co2 is a problem unless you buy into the green holy scam of guilt to take your money and redistribute wealth based on this scam.
Albertkallal 8 months ago
The green policies we have today are causing starvation around the world as we burn billions of tons of food in cars in place of feeding children. We are seeing food riots today for the first time in about 50 years. This starvation is due to green whack jobs like you pushing their green agenda of bio fuels. There is ZERO proof that man's co2 output will cause warming that will then cause some ice age due to cooling. So on this wild speculation your policy choice is to starve children now?
Albertkallal 8 months ago
@Albertkallal you are assuming a little too much. I doubt you count trees as food, or hemp plants as food. Bio energy is not the best option to fossile fuel. But lets face it, in 20-30 years our fossile deposits will be depleeted. Then what?
and I'm not asking for any proof because there is none. However there is no proof that we don't contribute to it neither. So we are in the dark, and we are taking a risk in our choice. Either global economical damage, or global ecological damage.
Lighthammer18 8 months ago
@Albertkallal just because the carbon taxes allow ppl to use it for greed has no gravity on the science of the situation. Now did the ppl who intended to benefit of the greed create the science? Or are they using the science in order to take advatage of the ppl?
I don't know...but I do believe in sustainability. Does that mean I support every politician's actions due to the hypothesis? hell no!
I think ppl are gonna ruin the idea of taking care of our world by fucking ppl with the fear
Rorix9 7 months ago
Al Gore is selling you how carbon is the devil that we must tax all the while on the board of a carbon trading company. Author of IPCC papers not even peer reviewed without science stated that governments urgently must adopt renewable energy as policy while owning a solar panel company. Parachari has mile long list of conflict interests with IPCC as he fills his pockets. Lie after lie and a quick look at the players we see them filling their pockets by promoting this scam to the public.
Albertkallal 7 months ago
@Albertkallal Do you believe in sustainability?
I am not sold on Al Gore's "stuff"...but I do believe humans have the ability to alter the planets climate. HOWEVER my main concern is not the climate...its sustainability. The we way we use resources as if they are infinite is appauling to me. The native american's had a wonderful philosophy: make your decisions in respect to 3 generations after you. If we did that, the world would be a different place.
Rorix9 7 months ago
We doing well in terms of resources. We have more trees and green today then 100 years ago in the US. The natives did not have water bombers and modern fire fighting equipment (fire could burn for years the whole country). Every pollution index from air to water is much cleaner today than 30 years ago. We are closing down manufacturing plants every week. Only places like China treat the earth like a sewer and are not running in a sustainable manor but here North America we doing rather well.
Albertkallal 7 months ago
@Albertkallal I think that is a very nieve point of view. We are not doing well when it comes to resources. We consume resources at an astounding rate in comparison to the rest of the world. More trees today than 100 yrs ago? I have a hard time swallowing that stat. It is quite a stretch to say we are doing "rather well".
Rorix9 7 months ago
BULLSHIT! LETS MAKE WAR AND CARS!
caremir 8 months ago
Greenhouse effect is out of question. I firmly believe we somehow heightened it with all our expense in the last half millenia. Check history: our ancestors DIDN'T burned as much fossil fuels as we do now.
smallville2490 8 months ago
@smallville2490 Then again human race has only been here for 2 million years. And we've only been burning fossil fuels in the last 100 years or so. The CO2 in the atmosphere was tens of times higher before humans even existed, who burned the fuel? The dinosaurs? And C02 isn't bad, plants need it to make their food! We need it to make some of our food as well. Thats why plants grew so immensely during prehistory.
Its a scam, and AL gore is a complete idiot!!
stefanoGFsiciliano 7 months ago
Comment removed
smallville2490 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stefanoGFsiciliano to say that (excessive) CO2 isn't bad doesn't make sense to me. It is an established science that it traps heat. I've been learning that since grade- school. By the way, I've never heard any of Al Gore since I stumbled his movie weeks ago. And I see nothing wrong about energy conservation and innovation that he suggested either.
smallville2490 7 months ago
@smallville2490 Not to mention that all life form is carbon based.
stefanoGFsiciliano 7 months ago
Of course... as long as the human race can convince itself that it's inocent and hasn't done a thing to accellerate climate change we can all go about our lives happily knowing, thinking everything will be fine. wake up you idiots. China and america are two of the largest consumers on the planet, guzzling down more fossil fuels than any other, filling the atmosphere with billions of tons of CO2. I'd present a graph but I fear that some of you pig-ignorants would just dismiss it as propaganda.
Rora989 8 months ago
When you say all that co2 we are outputting, how much are we outputting compared to nature? Obviously you've not bothered to even learn what percentage of the atmosphere is co2. To put this in perspective oxygen is about 18% of the atmosphere and co2 is 0.038%. We talking about hundreds of a percent and of THAT small tiny amount man only output 3% of the total. We not seeing warming as predicted and this socialists left greens cooking up new tax scams to fleece more money out of your pockets.
Albertkallal 8 months ago
@Albertkallal And what makes you think I didn't know that? You do realize that the atmosphere as well as the biosphere are increadably delicatly balanced, don't you? I have to admit that with ice core samples going back as far as they do it is clearly evident that Climate change is a natural proccess that has happened many times before. However, that does not change the fact that CO2 output (as well as methane output from farmed cows) has tipped the delicate scale of the atmosphere somewhat.
Rora989 8 months ago
Hard to argue we upset huge balance with an output of 3% of co2. We had higher levels co2 and colder temperatures in the past and also lower levels of co2 and higher temperatures. Polar bears did fine and plants have responded to this extra co2. Even Phil Jones admitted warming rates today are not different then last two warming periods. The first coat of paint on a window is much like CO2 and it done most it effects. CO2 is not driving temperatures as claimed Gore's and crooks at the UN.
Albertkallal 8 months ago
@Albertkallal It is true that CO2 has not driven temperature before. As temp goes up by about 0.5oC (from Milankovitch cycles) nature releases more CO2 (by a tiny amount - say close to 3%), causing temp to rise more, then more CO2 and on and on until the tipping point is breached. So temp drives CO2, then CO2 drives temp ect. What is happening now is the same but without the initial trigger of temp rise. We have started the spiral by releasing CO2, simply skipping the first step of temp rise.
SamosTheSage 8 months ago
We do not see temperatures rising first in the atmosphere as predicted by GHG but only on the ground first? (that is backwards!). Worse is we are not seeing a different rate of warming now then last two warming cycles (they are 66 years as a pair). More damming is GIS/Hansen's corrections to previous sets of data made then appear cooler. It is outright stupid to accept co2 driving temps when we not seeing warming rates as predicted by the carbon trader Gore and his green crooks at the IPCC.
Albertkallal 8 months ago
@Albertkallal Ok i now have know idea what you're even trying to say, and i'm bored of all this shit. I just want to know why you are so desperate to disprove global warming? Whether Gore is right or not it's obvious that changing the balance of our world is bad, destroying ecosystems is bad, forcing species to go extinct faster than new ones can evolve is bad. Besides fossil fuels are gunna run out. We might as well work on developing a more sustainable fuel now.
SamosTheSage 8 months ago
@Albertkallal You are a misguided fool and an idiot.
Kenslov 8 months ago
@Albertkallal Ok then. you sit down and look at a tempreture map of say the last few thousand years. then look at a map of CO2 present in the atmosphere for the same period. While gore is saying to get hte point across I would agree with you to a degree. CO2 doesn't drive tempretures but it does affect them. Also I never said it upset a 'huge balance' I said it upset a 'delicate balance'. would it be right to assume that you don't believe CO2 has an effect on the atmosphere?
Rora989 8 months ago
@Rora989 hmmmm did YOU denounce this as propaganda you pig-ignorant lmao.... you are a wack job... btw everyone even libs tree hugging wack jobs like yourself can agree that the temperature hasnt changed in more than 10 years... what happened there??? musta been george bush lmao
kbx300 8 months ago
@kbx300 I'm really not too sure what you're saying... though I understood the part where you said that everyone agrees tempretures havn't changed. and out of interest where is your evidence for this.
Also, I don't see what being liberal has to do with this and besides, I'm not liberal
Rora989 8 months ago
Nothing but propaganda based on flawed science perpetrated by scientist with political not scientifical ulterior motives.
1lluminado 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The last decade was the hottest on modern record. - WMO
The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over. -Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change
The warming trend over 1970 to 2001 is greater than warming from both 1860 to 1880 and 1910 to 1940. GISS/ NOAA
checkyoursources 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Associated Press contacted more than 100 climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. All 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie said that Gore accurately conveyed the science, with few errors- The Washington Post.
checkyoursources 9 months ago
The Associated Press contacted more than 100 climate researchers and questioned them about the film's veracity. All 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie said that Gore accurately conveyed the science, with few errors- The Washington Post.
checkyoursources 9 months ago
p.s. What makes you think i'm a "socialist". Does listening to scientists make me "socialist", does being anti-sustainability make you a non socialist?
You do realise that you are allowing your dislike of policies to cloud your objectivity. You are attacking the science because of the policies that resulted are not to your liking, that's very dishonest of you. Do you cheer when you see someone starving? judging by your comments it would seem so. I expect you dislike freedom of speech too.
checkyoursources 9 months ago
Jumping into a tank and firing bullets on behalf of the National Socialist party does not mean you believe you are a NAZI, but would be supporting them anyway. You attempting to support Gores gross and large list of errors and throw truth under the bus means you look the other way with your honesty and integrity. Does not matter if you think your socialist, you support their position by doing this. Note I NOT talking about your support of AGW but about your support of lies in science.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
@Albertkallal Do you include Al gore in your list of socialists because it's odd how he is so rich if he is a socialist. I am merely pointing out the fact that there were only two errors by Gore and the film was broadly accurate. Please name the errors you claim apart from the two I have listed?
checkyoursources 9 months ago
You need to learn the popular acronym national socialist that describes people like Gore. Gore policy not only enslaves you like a farm animal with these types of taxation systems, but he also on the board of a carbon trading company after selling you that tax. Gore's support of free trade again is a policy that transfers rights from the people to the international banksters and corporate elites that sell out their country and people to not only fill their pockets, but makes you a slave to them.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
Gores wrong claims due to AGW. Sea level will rise 20 feet (wrong). Pacific islands drowning (wrong). Thermohaline circulation "stopping" (wrong). Graph in movie shows co2 driving temperature (wrong graph shows reverse). Hurricane Katrina "man made"(wrong). Polar bears "dying" (wrong, population has increased from 5000 to 25000). Japanese typhoons "a new record" (wrong, not record). Hurricanes "getting stronger" (wrong). Sahara desert "drying" (wrong). West Nile virus spread in the US (wrong).
Albertkallal 9 months ago
@Albertkallal i'm now going to reply to your comment one part at a time starting with Hurricanes. The duration and strength of hurricanes have increased by about 50 percent over the last three decades, according to study author Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. It was in "Nature" journal . Also see Emanuel, Kerry (2008). "The Hurricane-Climate Connection" Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 89 (5).
checkyoursources 9 months ago
A simple 30 year period unless compared to previous periods does NOT prove we historically are seeing more intensive hurricanes but ONLY so in a 30 THAT year 30 year period. The previous year warming periods also saw changes in hurricane intensity. Worse paper does not make the same claim as Gore that man's co2 caused this. Gore did not just make the statement about hurricanes, but said that man's co2 caused this and that not stated in that paper.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
@Albertkallal Only a non scientist would ask for "proof". Proof is an unscientific term. To say a theory is proven is crazy as it implies that no amount of new contradictory evidence will change the theory. That is why i stated at the start that AGW is the most likely explanation for the majority of recent warming since the 1970's. What explanation would you give for more intense hurricanes than a temp/energy content increase?
checkyoursources 9 months ago
You are asking us for an act of faith based on Gore's witness to something of which science does not support. Sea level increase is NOT accelerating. IPCC just removed their ridiculous claim of 50 million refugees due to AGW. Frequency of record temperatures is lower today then 1930s. Strong and violent tornados are down from the 1970's. Global tropical cyclone activity is lowest in 30 years, why?. One statement about a strong storm and you make an act of faith on your part that this is AGW?
Albertkallal 8 months ago
@Albertkallal Nope, i'm asking you to stop assuming Gore is the only person in all this and read some scientific papers instead of blogs. Observed sea levels are actually tracking at the upper range of the IPCC projections. When accelerating ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica are factored into sea level projections, the estimated sea level rise by 2100 is between 75cm to 2 metres. See (Vermeer 2009)/(Allison et al 2009).
Care to name some scientific sources for your other comments?
checkyoursources 8 months ago
@checkyoursources Well said. However I am making an act of faith Albertkallal. Not in Al Gore but myself. My faith does not require you to believe in what I believe. I believe that climate change will continue until we have murdered the very thing that gave us life: Earth. But I have faith in the ability of humanity to stop this catastrophe. A SELFLESSLY UNITED mankind can stop any threat. Especially when the real threat in question is greed. If all you will see is data, it looks like this: $.
SamosTheSage 8 months ago
Comment removed
SamosTheSage 8 months ago
@Albertkallal On pacific islands and sea level see: Patel, Samir S. (April 5, 2006). "A Sinking Feeling". Nature.
checkyoursources 9 months ago
Again a meaning less paper unless you can explain why parts of the world are not seeing the same rise in sea levels? Somehow we are to believe in "smart water" that does not flow to its Equilibrium and therefore the rates a sea level are going to be different in parts of the world? Rates of sea level change have not changed and that study ONLY shows a measurement of sea level, not a change in the rates DUE TO CO2 as Gore claims. They are measuring Continental shift in land not the sea level.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
@Albertkallal Bruce C. Douglas (1997). "Global Sea Rise: A Redetermination". Surveys in Geophysics 18
Church, John; White, Neil (January 6, 2006). "A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise". Geophysical Research Letters 33 Bindoff, N.L. et al (2007)."Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level".
Sea level varies due to gravity/temp/pressure differences in different parts of the world and because the Earth is not a perfect sphere.
The sea level is rising and accelerating.
checkyoursources 9 months ago
@Albertkallal On polar bears: According to a 2009 report by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, of the 19 recognised subpopulations of polar bears, 8 are in decline, 1 is increasing, 3 are stable and 7 don’t have enough data to draw any conclusions. The 2005 report showed a lower % of declining populations than 2009 i.e. the number of declining populations has increased.
checkyoursources 9 months ago
@Albertkallal On CO2: CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. I have to go now, but i'll finish this list of counter points later, don't go deleting my posts, it would be admitting defeat on your part and dishonest to boot.
checkyoursources 9 months ago
@Albertkallal On sea level: Gore did not specify a timescale for the 20 feet comment.
checkyoursources 9 months ago
With out a time scale then is it NOT PROOF of man's co2 caused this. ANY science data without stating or assuming a time frame is dishonest. Not sure who is worse, Gore or your attempting to defend this type of dis-honesty? Why are you trying to support such dishonest viewpoints then? Any reasonable person would conclude that this meant current time frames and the judge in the UK courts cause stated as such. The real issue is why are you not being reasonable and supporting such dishonesty?
Albertkallal 9 months ago
@Albertkallal Lets state what Gore implied: Gore discusses the possibility of the collapse of a major ice sheet in Greenland or in West Antarctica, either of which could raise global sea levels by approximately 20 feet (6 m). Are you denying that a temp rise that caused a mjor ice sheet collapse would not cause a rise this big? He couldn't put a timescale on it because we don't know how melting will accelerate over the next century. It would've been dishonest to include a timescale.
checkyoursources 9 months ago
Glenn Back is a quack! Why would anyone listen to him?
eddo1983 9 months ago
And what criteria row are using to make this judgment? In other words we now in place of trusting Beck are now to trust your character! So now you have become the all seeing and all knowing universal judge of who we are to accept as a quack and not? In other words you have now become the judge and jury here? So now you become the universal holy being and deity whose job it is to go around on the Internet and make a judgment on everybody else but yourself? Right, got it!
Albertkallal 9 months ago
@Albertkallal every show he is yapping about judgement day and saying stupid things
eddo1983 9 months ago
Conservatives...so obdurate.
puttputt905 9 months ago
@puttputt905 Liberals...so brainwashed.
3400979 9 months ago
Why read papers when they refuse to correct their own errors. The peer review community gave Gore the Nobel prize and gave their peer review to his movie. However I have to go to Lord Monckton's site to find the 30 gross errors. So I will gladly go read those papers when you direct me to the peer reviewed corrections. For what reason is peer review any good if they do not correct anything and I am forced to Monckton's site to find gross errors that the science community refuses to correct?
Albertkallal 9 months ago
The
Albertkallal 9 months ago
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel Prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel Prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of
Albertkallal 9 months ago
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of..
Albertkallal 9 months ago
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give AlGore the Nobel Prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel Prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
The peerreview you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peerreview science community voted to give Gore the Nobel Prize and they gave their peerreview authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peers site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel Prize and they gave their review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peers site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel Prize and they gave their review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peers site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel Prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say
Albertkallal 9 months ago
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the nobel prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give gore the nobel prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the nobel prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet you cannot send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Moncktons site to find 30 gross errors and yet YOU CANNOT send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to why is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
The peer review you speak of has thrown out science and truth in the name of politics. That same peer review science community voted to give Gore the Nobel prize and they gave their peer review authority for his movie. So I can go to Lord Monckton's site to find 30 gross errors and yet YOU CANNOT send me to a peer site that issued those corrections. So the answer as to "why" is simple that until you send me to a peer site that corrects those errors there is no reason to accept what they say.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science. Al Gore's film was "broadly accurate" according to an expert witness called when an attempt by deniers was made through the courts to prevent the film being shown in schools.
checkyoursources 9 months ago
They are not minor errors but rather huge ones. People in other fields such as doctors or financial people go to jail when such large errors are made. Science community threw their support and credibility behind that movie and to Gore by giving him the Nobel Prize. The idea then that no corrections need to be issued is absolute brain dead on your part. Thus no self-review and no correcting is occurring in the science community but only a wiliness to be politically correct. A rather sad situation
Albertkallal 9 months ago
c02 does not rise temp? lol! i had science and biology in high school .. and that is what they taught us, if that is wrong theeen I guess there is a problem with our curriculums in school??
glenn beck is an idiooota
lalal3aby 10 months ago
Just wondering what University you idiots got your GED from? I have a BS in Chemistry from a University. Can you fools spell science?
lsharpe69 10 months ago
people deny global warming because they are scared of it and they know what will happen in the end. They just want to live without fear so the government pay people to say otherwise
forceofchaos1 10 months ago
Al Gore should be arrested for fraudulently overly exaggerating.
Nashhinton 10 months ago
lol wow who would have thought freaking crazy Beck doesnt believe in global warming... republican fail lmao
Kategunster 10 months ago
YEAH THAT'S WHY JAPAN IS GOD DAMN SINIKING @_@ ARGHH he was right!!!
MitsuiRyou 10 months ago
Increase in CO2 levels is normal when temperature rises and vice-versa, i.e., when dangerous levels of CO2 are sent to the atmosphere, the temperature rises. What really matters is that the natural cycles of average earth temperature, are increasing extremely fast, due to our wrong attitude and conduct.
High polluting nations, like USA or China, refuse to sign environment respecting treaties, because they want to be strong economies, without regarding the consequences. Trolling is what USA does.
grtm1609 10 months ago
How is the USA high polluting when they are closing down manufacturing plants every week? First time since 1940's we saw a drop in miles driven. USA is doing their part by closing down manufacturing every week. In China we see a new coal plant going up every two weeks. Every measure of air, water, food quality has been continuously getting better in the USA. The only place treating the world like a cesspool is China. In fact people are sick and dying around the world largest solar plant in china
Albertkallal 10 months ago
@Albertkallal
Look at the data, the statistics. America is the biggest polluting nation on the planet because the evidence says so.
splotsplot 10 months ago 8
CO2 is not pollution and is the wonderful stuff that your potatoes feed on to convert co2 into carbohydrates which is then food for us humans. China has surpassed the USA in BOTH car sales and co2 output. In steel production USA is 5 times less polluting and use half or even less energy for steel. USA air quality has CONSTANT improved for last 30 years. China treats the world like a sewer and there are sick from pollution. We should not be trading with these gross polluters like China.
Albertkallal 10 months ago
@Albertkallal
The USA is high polluting because it is one of the richest countries. the USA simply has more people that use cars than anywhere else in the world, have more factories, and use the most oil. the USA alone, is responsible for more than 40% of all Co2 that goes into the atmosphere, based on emissions in quantity. Most other countries are responsible for less than 5%. the USA ALSO, refuses to sell cars that get better gas millage because that's where the USA makes their money from.
55darkwolfe55 9 months ago
CO2 is not a pollution but is plant food. Recent studies show that we have seen some nice increases in plants due to co2 and there are more trees today in USA the 100 years ago (when a forest fire could burn for years on end). China now buys more cars then USA. Worse is we use half or even less energy to make steel with FAR less pollution then China. We have best standards and enjoy the cleanest air, water and food. It is only places like China that now pollute and treat the world like a sewer.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
@Albertkallal
i'm sorry but if you have to much plant food, it wont eat it all up, and there will be to much left over, which causes the rising problems of the future. regardless of who does the most polluting, its still bad. your trying to say something along the lines of, it doesn't matter how much i run, i wont get tired and break down. you can only eat so much at a time, yes? i don't think you could eat all the cows in the world at once, correct? plants can't either.....(continue...)
55darkwolfe55 9 months ago
Trying to be silly here? You can over water a plant but Water is not a pollutant. Amount of co2 in the air amounts to less than 0.04% (correct - less than 4/100ths of a percent and thus plants are starving for co2). Man outputs only 3% of that 0.04% (tiny amount). Oxygen is 18% vs. that tiny 0.04% of co2. Commercial greenhouses use 3-4 times or more co2 levels to promote plant growth and natural co2 amounts results in cruelty to plants and starving them of their rightful amounts of co2.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
@Albertkallal The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any. CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year due to human emissions.
checkyoursources 9 months ago
And that extra co2 is causing more green plants to grow. After all, if you love trees, then why not give them more food? Why be cruel to those trees? The tree huggers should be happy that their trees are now being given more food. The redwoods in CA show quite a nice growth increase and we see more green and trees today than 100 years ago. On the other hand going back just 300 years, a fire could rage on for years since the natives did not have water bombers and modern fire fighting equipment.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
@Albertkallal High CO2 levels have associated effects which outweigh the benefits e.g.: Read: Decline in rice yields due to warmer nighttime minimum temperatures (Peng 2004, Tao 2008), Decline in global phytoplankton (Boyce 2010)
Decline in global net primary production - the amount of carbon absorbed by plants (Zhao 2010), Inhibiting plankton development, disruption of carbon cycle (Turley 2005).
checkyoursources 9 months ago
Says who there not net benefits co2? These lying scumbags been wrong on EVERY SINGLE prediction. MET stated that cold winters and lots of snow would be thing of past (wrong). An increase in storms? (again wrong). Increase in malaria (wrong again). An increase in the "rate" of sea level rise (again wrong) They state "insert your favorite political crap garbage statement" of the day. They NEVER correct wrong science statements and throw truth under the bus in the name of politics and socialism.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
Until we see self-correcting science and you direct me to a site that corrects these lies by the science community then your motivation is suspect. Your credibility does not exist until you direct to a site that corrects these huge science errors. So I go to a site by Lord Monckton to find out these gross and huge and massive incorrect science statements? Until you direct me to that site that corrects their errors then you are just a prostitute and you have no desire to correct your errors.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
@Albertkallal Lord Monkeytown is a buffoon. If you want to listen to a man who wanted everyone with AIDS rounded up and placed in concentration camps then that's your issue. Monkeytown has no scientific qualifications. Care to name even one peer reviewed paper by him that was actually published?
checkyoursources 9 months ago
Every government and health organization around the world has always held up legitimate right of quarantining parts of the population when diseases threaten the general population. When it was learned how AIDS was transmitted and what kind of infectious threat it would be to the general population then governments realized that quarantine was not necessary. Quite laughable you try to spin the basic position that Moncton had that was the same postion from every health organization on the planet.
Albertkallal 9 months ago
As I pointed out until you can direct me to some peer reviewed site that corrects all these errors then you failed to explain why I should accept papers from people that refuse to correct their errors? Why would I accept papers that are wrong and have incorrect science? Why stand here and tell me to accept papers that lie and are incorrect? I am still waiting for you to direct me to those peer reviewed papers that correct all these errors and until you do that you do not have a leg to stand on.
Albertkallal 9 months ago