Al Gore = pwned?

[zerogear]

Be that as it may, its a good 'scam' to ween us off fossil fuels and into more efficient/renewable sources.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Listen, if you want to argue with NASA, send them a letter, I'm sure they will take you a lot more seriously than I do.

You are an ass and an idiot. Thanks for confiming it.

 

[Billyzeke]

Al Gore the Eco Whore!

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Listen, if you want to argue with NASA, send them a letter, I'm sure they will take you a lot more seriously than I do.

You are an ass and an idiot. Thanks for confiming it.

Petty name calling? Hardly to be recommended if you wish to be taken seriously when refuting scientific evidence presented by NASA. However, I assume too much, as you clearly don't wish to be taken seriously.

Summary of your recent posting activity:

1) Question statements that affirm that humans are largely responsible for global warming.
2) You receive data published by NASA that contradicts your claims and subsequently question said data.
3) Call me an ass and idiot when I point out that the data you are refuting is published by leading NASA scientists.

Not to worry, I'm sure that your use of the words "ass" and "idiot" will convince many people of the validity of your position: after all, who listens to a bunch of rocket scientists anyway? Have you ever thought of taking up debating at a professional level?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: NeoV
a few more thoughts - no proof of global warming? I suppose that depends on your definition of proof, but lets start with agreed upon scientific data

temperature chart from Nasa: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

another from the Climatic Research Unit: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

measurements from Satellites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...llite_Temperatures.png

glacial melting as seen here: http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html

sea ice melt: http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trends_fig1.html

I would hope most logical people - Al Gore haters included, could at least look at data like this - which climatologists have - and conclude that indeed the earth is warming.

With that first big step out of the way - the next discussion is 'what is the cause'?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas - yes, it is not the only one. Take a look at this graph: http://www.brighton73.freeserv...w/paleo/20000yrfig.htm

Take a look at this one as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...n_Emission_by_Type.png

Clearly - our co2 output is the primary cause of the increased levels of atmoshperic co2 - note that I'm not saying that it proves this is the cause of global warming, but it certainly qualifies as something close to a smoking gun.

Don't bring up the garbage out the famous 'hockey stick graph' either - there is plenty of open debate about both sides of that discussion - and there are dozens of other studies which produce very similar results - and even the people who don't like how the 'hockey stick graph - aka the IPC TAR Summary' data was used don't refute these other studies.

Finally - the Hansen model - which had 3 possible scenarios - not the one scenario that anti-GW talking points say was "300% off". His "B" scenario has come remarkably close to what has actually happened over the past 20 years - and if you roll the model used for these scenarios backwards in time, they again appear to be remarkably accurate, as seen here: http://www.grida.no/publicatio...c_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

Again - CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, but it's contribution is: "According to the scientific literature and climate experts, CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect." I'll grant you that is a wide spectrum of possible impact - but when you consider the dramatic rise in CO2 concentration that corresponds with temperature increases, it can't simply be tossed aside either.

As for other 'talking points' against man's impact on global warming:

Water Vapor - changes in water vapor levels tend to be leveled out naturally - too much water vapor leads to increased rains, too little is fixed with increased evaporation - more details here: http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/st...df/RadiationBudget.pdf

Mars is getting warmer too! - this is a good one - I believe it's even been mentioned in this thread. As mentioned earlier -the only common factor is the sun - and I've already pointed out (in a prior post, more details on satellite observation are available if you want to see them) where that isn't the cause - and when you consider the vast amount of data we have for earth's climate - only talking recent history here - and compare it to the practically non-existent 'evidence' of warming on mars - which apparently only consists of a series of photographs that show some polar melting. We do have some data as well, going back to the Viking landers and the subsequent missions there, but to conclude that global warming is taking place there is just plain false - see this article: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

A few final comments - to say there is as much money in the GW-"con" as their is in current energy tech is just plain silly - did you see Exxon's earnings announcement today? Same thing last year - this is the most profitable company in the world - 2 years running - do you really think anything related to GW, or going green, is going to come anywhere close to that in the next 1-15 years?

Why is it a bad thing to try and make the air cleaner - GW or not? Ask people who suffer from asthma about that.
Why is it a bad thing to try and lessen our dependence on foreign fuel sources?
Why is it a bad thing to utilize more nuclear plants - if you are going to make cars electric - fully or partially - more coal plants aren't the answer - and clean coal as it stands today is a pipe-dream. Spend that money to improve the ways nuclear waste is stored, and start building more nuclear plants!
Stop using corn as a source of ethanol - it's a complete waste of time - until you have a better, technologically ready, solution - switchgrass perhaps - keep using corn for food!

I don't like the whole 'carbon credits' thing either - but it's a start.

My final take - the best thing about the whole GW discussion - at least we are finally having it. We are finally taking steps now, and talking about spending money, on solving some of these issues - and whether you believe in man-influenced global warming or not - I find it nearly impossible to say why we shouldn't be taking these steps regardless.

Facts and logic are like kryptonite to most republicans/conservatives/global warming deniers. These are the same people that are pushing intelligent design as a 'science'.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Zolty
I love all the citations he uses to prove his point. We should totally believe random journalist for some local news over peer reviewed scientific journals.

Conservatives are quite lazy and stupid that way. Just look at intelligent design. It's quite easy to say 'god did it' compared to having to do scientific inquiry into evolution.

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Listen, if you want to argue with NASA, send them a letter, I'm sure they will take you a lot more seriously than I do.

You are an ass and an idiot. Thanks for confiming it.

Petty name calling? Hardly to be recommended if you wish to be taken seriously when refuting scientific evidence presented by NASA. However, I assume too much, as you clearly don't wish to be taken seriously.

Summary of your recent posting activity:

1) Question statements that affirm that humans are largely responsible for global warming.
2) You receive data published by NASA that contradicts your claims and subsequently question said data.
3) Call me an ass and idiot when I point out that the data you are refuting is published by leading NASA scientists.

Not to worry, I'm sure that your use of the words "ass" and "idiot" will convince many people of the validity of your position: after all, who listens to a bunch of rocket scientists anyway? Have you ever thought of taking up debating at a professional level?

C'mon dude. NASA is obviously hiding an agenda. They want the world to be....errr. I dunno. IT JUST FEELS LIKE IT SO IT MUST BE TRUE! It's all a giant scam!! YES! I have no evidence. I just want to impress my friends so I say it.

 

[KMFJD]

The whole buying carbon offsets is a scam.....

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Listen, if you want to argue with NASA, send them a letter, I'm sure they will take you a lot more seriously than I do.

You are an ass and an idiot. Thanks for confiming it.

Petty name calling? Hardly to be recommended if you wish to be taken seriously when refuting scientific evidence presented by NASA. However, I assume too much, as you clearly don't wish to be taken seriously.

Summary of your recent posting activity:

1) Question statements that affirm that humans are largely responsible for global warming.
2) You receive data published by NASA that contradicts your claims and subsequently question said data.
3) Call me an ass and idiot when I point out that the data you are refuting is published by leading NASA scientists.

Not to worry, I'm sure that your use of the words "ass" and "idiot" will convince many people of the validity of your position: after all, who listens to a bunch of rocket scientists anyway? Have you ever thought of taking up debating at a professional level?

C'mon dude. NASA is obviously hiding an agenda. They want the world to be....errr. I dunno. IT JUST FEELS LIKE IT SO IT MUST BE TRUE! It's all a giant scam!! YES! I have no evidence. I just want to impress my friends so I say it.

I apologise, I hadn't factored the "NASA scientist conspiracy theory" into my assumptions: they are clearly out to get us and gsellis should be congratulated for drawing our attention to their sinister plots.

Let's call John Rambo, I'll be damned if he doesn't sort out what's going on.

 

[actuarial]

Originally posted by: NeoV
A few final comments - to say there is as much money in the GW-"con" as their is in current energy tech is just plain silly - did you see Exxon's earnings announcement today? Same thing last year - this is the most profitable company in the world - 2 years running - do you really think anything related to GW, or going green, is going to come anywhere close to that in the next 1-15 years?

I don't think GW is some evil scam, but I think you clearly misunderstand the money making scam theory.

Of course there's more money in oil than green technologies, and a lot of people have spoken up questioning the economic impact of going head on into something which we don't fully understand (regardless of if you think MMGW is real or not, I don't think many people know exactly what the results of this will be).

But to your point, do the people, such as Gore and other scientists, benefit if global warming isn't real? Do they get a cut of Exxon's profits? If they don't, and they make money (though research, books, speaking engagements) based upon their global warming research, and get much more than they would have otherwise, how can you say there isn't money in it for the people who support global warming.

Now if these guys with the huge GW research dollars came out and said it is definitely not happening, or Exxon comes out and says "holy shit the earth is getting hot" then we have an opinion from someone who isn't making money off of having that opinion!

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: actuarial

Originally posted by: NeoV
A few final comments - to say there is as much money in the GW-"con" as their is in current energy tech is just plain silly - did you see Exxon's earnings announcement today? Same thing last year - this is the most profitable company in the world - 2 years running - do you really think anything related to GW, or going green, is going to come anywhere close to that in the next 1-15 years?

I don't think GW is some evil scam, but I think you clearly misunderstand the money making scam theory.

Of course there's more money in oil than green technologies, and a lot of people have spoken up questioning the economic impact of going head on into something which we don't fully understand (regardless of if you think MMGW is real or not, I don't think many people know exactly what the results of this will be).

But to your point, do the people, such as Gore and other scientists, benefit if global warming isn't real? Do they get a cut of Exxon's profits? If they don't, and they make money (though research, books, speaking engagements) based upon their global warming research, and get much more than they would have otherwise, how can you say there isn't money in it for the people who support global warming.

Now if these guys with the huge GW research dollars came out and said it is definitely not happening, or Exxon comes out and says "holy shit the earth is getting hot" then we have an opinion from someone who isn't making money off of having that opinion!

NASA are clearly making a lot of money via their scam to prove that global warming is in fact happening. I hear they launched a couple of rockets using these funds.

Let's call Rocky this time ("Adriiiiiaaaannn"): he'll sort it out.

 

[mattpegher]

Like most scientific data there are studies that show a variety of data. Most of the studies suggest some rise in temperature on the range of 0.6% celcius for average temperatures. There is not enough data to suggest that this is a prolonged trend as our data does not go back far enough.
I believe that GW is real, however, I believe that popular media and some scientist are capitalizing on the fear it generates, and over emphasizing its impact.

I also am suspect of any solutions that have not been rigorously simulated and exhaustively investigated as most knee-jerk reactions usually are ineffective and often counterproductive.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Listen, if you want to argue with NASA, send them a letter, I'm sure they will take you a lot more seriously than I do.

I apologise, I hadn't factored the "NASA scientist conspiracy theory" into my assumptions: they are clearly out to get us and gsellis should be congratulated for drawing our attention to their sinister plots.

Let's call John Rambo, I'll be damned if he doesn't sort out what's going on.

There is a "conspiracy" and it goes by the name of James Hansen. He manipulates the "raw" data and tunes the models to fit the projection, not the data. If you compare GISS to UAH or Hadley/CRUT, you will see they diverge. All about his agenda and continued funding. He gets paid to be the mouthpiece and is the chief watermelon.

And, you sophmoric, dismissive crap gets what it deserves. Until you actual understand statistics and computer modeling, your opinion does not count. AGW models are the biggest piece of crap run on a computer.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: Red Irish
Listen, if you want to argue with NASA, send them a letter, I'm sure they will take you a lot more seriously than I do.

I apologise, I hadn't factored the "NASA scientist conspiracy theory" into my assumptions: they are clearly out to get us and gsellis should be congratulated for drawing our attention to their sinister plots.

Let's call John Rambo, I'll be damned if he doesn't sort out what's going on.

There is a "conspiracy" and it goes by the name of James Hansen. He manipulates the "raw" data and tunes the models to fit the projection, not the data. If you compare GISS to UAH or Hadley/CRUT, you will see they diverge. All about his agenda and continued funding. He gets paid to be the mouthpiece and is the chief watermelon.

And, you sophmoric, dismissive crap gets what it deserves. Until you actual understand statistics and computer modeling, your opinion does not count. AGW models are the biggest piece of crap run on a computer.

What about Chuck Norris? I'm sure he'll be able to sort it out.

It seemed pretty clear to me: NASA say global warming exists and conclude that human action is aggravating the situation and you say the data is incorrect.

Try to save some vestige of your self-respect and stop bumping this thread: you have been proven wrong.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
This article says Al is full of shit, basically.

"Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history," Coleman wrote.

It looks like GW was not anything but made up crap afterall. :shocked:

I am not reading all the replies... but all I can say is Al Gore did not get owned. He has made millions off global warming. He is a douche.... but a rich douche.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124

Originally posted by: her209
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...iews_on_global_warming

Views on global warming
Despite having no educational or scientific credentials in meteorology, climatology, environmental science, or indeed any other scientific field or discipline, in the fall of 2007 Coleman described the current concern over global warming "a fictional, manufactured crisis, and a total scam." [3] His postings assessing the science behind global warming can be read at www.kusi.com. In fact, Coleman is not even a board-certified meteorologist or weather reader, the requirements for which are but several semester hours of successfully completed college coursework in meteorology or associated disciplines such as geology. In 2008 Coleman gave a speech of the same tone, before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, blaming the "global warming scam" and environmentalist lobby, for rising gas and food prices. He also declared the scam "a threat to our economy and our civilization." [4]

Coleman has also made appearances on Fox News Channel and on the Showtime program, Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, to share his global warming views.

Coleman recently published an article entitled "The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam"[5] in which he promotes his personal view that many scientists and politicians have been embroiled in what amounts to scam based on incomplete science and a political motive for a world government. Coleman claims that the 'scam' was triggered by the claims of scientist Roger Revelle whose primary motivation was seeking increased funding for the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.

Coleman's global warming views are closely aligned with those of the International Climate Science Coalition, an organization of over 197 climate science specialists or scientists in closely related fields, who in 2008 in Manhattan N.Y., issued a declaration known as the Manhattan Declaration stating that ?Global warming? is not a global crisis [6] .

Thanks. Useless thread avoided.

:thumbsup: