• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

An inconvenient truth...

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I saw it, then saw some British rebuttal video.

That one agreed GW is real, but disputed Gore's major point about the cause.

One assertion I remenber in the British rebuttal video was this:

Gore said man-made CO2 caused the temp increase.

The British film said the long term global temp increase consistently

preceded the increase in CO2 concentration by about 4 years,

which, if true, destroys Gore's claim.


We need to discover that non-polluting energy source!
 
Originally posted by: scott
I saw it, then saw some British rebuttal video.

That one agreed GW is real, but disputed Gore's major point about the cause.

One assertion I remenber in the British rebuttal video was this:

Gore said man-made CO2 caused the temp increase.

The British film said the long term global temp increase consistently

preceded the increase in CO2 concentration by about 4 years,

which, if true, destroys Gore's claim.


We need to discover that non-polluting energy source!
Click to expand...

Scott, do you know the name/title of the rebuttal? I would love to show something to all my "OMG, sell your Malibu Houses because they are going to be worthless by years end" friends.
 
Scott, do you know the name/title of the rebuttal? - Corporate Thug
Click to expand...

Well it was The Great Global Warming Swindle which is no longer on YouTube or Google Video or metacafe.

Just now in searching it out for you, I notice there are rebuttals of that rebuttal film.

So I'm sure there are plenty of fallacies, innocent fallacies due to simple ignorance, in everybody?s positions on the cause of GW.

I personally don't know, doubt everybody spouting "facts," and merely have a hunch GW is partly caused by some normal cycle of old Sol, exacerbated by extravagant human pollution and total disrespect for the fragile natural environment.
 
Originally posted by: ppdes
Most scientists I know care much more about securing funding than they would about taking over the world. If you want an ulterior motive for scientists, that is much more likely.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:

For those of you citing scientific journals, please read the above, and please keep this in mind while reading them. Also, years of scientific research doesn't mean you are right. Look at "string theory" -- after years and years of research (and many who believed it was the 'key' to the Universe), it's beginning to lose momentum as the theory-of-choice. And so it may occur with the 'global warming' issue. Not to discount the theory, just keep an open mind.
 
Forlot really is a tool, so don't pay any attention to his posts.

"Arctic sea ice during the 2007 melt season plummeted to the lowest levels since satellite measurements began in 1979, according to researchers at the University of Colorado at Boulder's National Snow and Ice Data Center.

If ship and aircraft records from before the satellite era are taken into account, sea ice may have fallen by as much as 50 percent from the 1950s. The September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 is now more than 10 percent per decade, said the CU-Boulder research team.

Arctic sea ice has long been recognized as a sensitive climate indicator, said CU-Boulder Research Professor Mark Serreze of CIRES and NSIDC. "Computer projections have consistently shown that as global temperatures rise, the sea ice cover will begin to shrink," he said. "While a number of natural factors have certainly contributed to the overall decline in sea ice, the effects of greenhouse warming are now coming through loud and clear."


Another factor that conspired to accelerate the ice loss this summer was an unusual atmospheric pattern, with persistent high atmospheric pressures over the central Arctic Ocean and lower pressures over Siberia. The scientists noted that skies were fairly clear under the high-pressure cell, promoting strong melt.

At the same time, the pattern of winds pumped warm air into the region. While the warm winds fostered further melt, they also helped push ice away from the Siberian shore. "While the decline of the ice started out fairly slowly in spring and early summer, it accelerated rapidly in July," said Walt Meier, a CIRES researcher at NSIDC. "By mid-August, we had already shattered all previous records for ice extent."


'We may well see an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer within our lifetimes," said Serreze, noting scientists agree such an event could occur by 2030. "The implications for global climate, as well as Arctic animals and people, are disturbing.'"


Link to ScienceDaily article.

Rogo
 
Also a little more primary source material for those of you (forlot) with your heads up a specific cavity.

UPDATE: Monday, October 1, 2007 - Record SH sea ice maximum and NH sea ice minimum

Just when you thought this season's cryosphere couldn't be more strange .... The Southern Hemisphere sea ice area narrowly surpassed the previous historic maximum of 16.03 million sq. km to 16.17 million sq. km. The observed sea ice record in the Southern Hemisphere (1979-present) is not as long as the Northern Hemisphere. Prior to the satellite era, direct observations of the SH sea ice edge were sporadic.

The NH sea ice area reached an historic minimum on September 16, 2007 (2.92 million sq. km), representing a 27% drop in sea ice coverage compared to the previous (2005) record NH ice minimum"

Link

Rogo


Here's an article with some great links to primary source material. UW, NASA, Jesus, and source material.
 
Originally posted by: scott
Scott, do you know the name/title of the rebuttal? - Corporate Thug
Click to expand...

Well it was The Great Global Warming Swindle which is no longer on YouTube or Google Video or metacafe.

Just now in searching it out for you, I notice there are rebuttals of that rebuttal film.

So I'm sure there are plenty of fallacies, innocent fallacies due to simple ignorance, in everybody?s positions on the cause of GW.

I personally don't know, doubt everybody spouting "facts," and merely have a hunch GW is partly caused by some normal cycle of old Sol, exacerbated by extravagant human pollution and total disrespect for the fragile natural environment.
Click to expand...

Even the scientists involved in that Documentary have debunked that Documentary. Those interviewed were the ones being swindled.
 
a big so what.
even if we all canned our cars and went into survival mode it wouldn't make a dent in the "problem". you aren't going to stop progress in china and india and the rest of the rising world. if its going to happen, its gonna happen😛

all the solutions that are bandied about don't address whether they actuallly have significant impact😛 its all dixie cups bailing out the titanic type stuff
 
Originally posted by: ppdes
Most scientists I know care much more about securing funding than they would about taking over the world. If you want an ulterior motive for scientists, that is much more likely.
Click to expand...

I work as a scientist in private industry doing pharmaceutical research crap and my biggest concern seems to be how much money I can bill my corporate clients each month.
 
I chuckle at people who can even entertain for a second that perhaps our dumping of shit into the skies for the past 100 years might, just might, have some sort of negative impact on our climate. Yeah, we puny humans can do no wrong. :roll:
 
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Cuda1447 for elite!

maybe there is hope for the next generation after all <wipes away a tear>
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:

You have restored some of my hope for the future off Anandtechs population. I thought everyone was turning into sheep.

You were willing to look at both sides. Rather than closing your mind and just shouting what you believe.

Thank you.
 
Originally posted by: 3NF
I heard on the radio one day that someone was suggesting that we (the country) eat less red meat, so that less cows would be raised and fart less (greenhouse gas) ... something like that.
Click to expand...

They can take my steak when they pry it out of my cold, dead hands. And if they try before I'm dead, well, since I'm eating steak, I'll have a steak knife and they won't. 😛

ZV
 
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: 3NF
I heard on the radio one day that someone was suggesting that we (the country) eat less red meat, so that less cows would be raised and fart less (greenhouse gas) ... something like that.
Click to expand...

They can take my steak when they pry it out of my cold, dead hands. And if they try before I'm dead, well, since I'm eating steak, I'll have a steak knife and they won't. 😛

ZV
Click to expand...

just how sharp does a tofu knife need to be anyway?

i think steak knife > tofu knife
 
Originally posted by: evident
instead of you guys just ripping the movie, was there any facts presented in this movie that were skewed? imo, it seemed pretty honest to me. i felt it woulda been more legit and gathered more public support from both sides of the aisle if he wasn't bitching about the 2000 elections though
Click to expand...

The animated graph gore shows of historical CO2 vs temp was skewed to show that CO2 was driving the temperature.

The corrected graph (if there is any relation at all in the 1st place) shows the inverse.
 
Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
i'll tell you this...as a grunt in the academic field working on data from these so-called good-willed scientists, I've seen them take insignificant data and turn them into "powerful" arguments to take in further grant money. That's their living. They live off of grant money, and more talks about global warming gives them the money to smudge statistically insignificant data. Bottom line: $$ talks, and if politics is what it takes to get it, then so be it.

They give me newer "Data" about 2-3 years after the experiments took place to write over the existing data in the database.

bleh. Who am I to argue though? I'm just a lowly coder who gets shit from phd's.
Click to expand...

/thread
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top