The fight to convince people of climate change...

[halik]

boomerag - to quote the principal from Billy Madison - " what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. "

Because there were volcanoes in earth's past means what exactly?

I could care less if Al Gore or George Bush was a 'spokesman' for this - when 97% of scientists in their field tell me something - I tend to believe them - they know much more about this than all of us put together. The idea that they are all in on some kind of scam is so ridiculous it's actually pathetic that the likes of you with your internet degree in climatology are telling us they are all wrong.

Here's a silly question - don't you think if this was all some kind of scam - wouldn't the scientists go where the real money is - IE the oil companies? If you were a climate scientist and you were willing to lie to make money - do you think it would be easier to have Exxon pay you to say that oil isn't harmful at all, or that we need to create a bunch of new technology and R&D despite fierce political opposition from people that think science is like religion - even thought they defend religion?

Call me crazy, but I'd go with the oil company if I was just offering my opinions for money and bogus science.

Quoted for truth. Scientists certainly don't have any real monetary incentive to make up research supporting man-made climate change; the same cannot be said for the critics.

Hugging trees never pays well.

On the same topic, I know absolutely nothing about climate and atmospheric modeling, the empirical data supporting the models or or anything else related to that topic... so I'll defer to the super-majority opinion of the people that do. Youtube climatology education notwithstanding.

 

[Nintendesert]

Those scientists don't work without grant money. That's their monetary incentive. They come to the conclusion of whatever the grant money says.

 

[monovillage]

You just linked to a graph that very clearly shows a consistent increase in the sea level over the last 18 years, with a small decrease in the last year or so that seems to be consistent with similar short term drops in the past, but which you seem to believe indicates a signfiicant problem for people who think climate change will increase the sea level.

When people talk about folks being anti-science, this is why.

Sea level has been trending higher for about the last 12,000 or so years. According to climate alarmist orthodoxy there's no way it should be dropping with the added CO2 that humans are emitting. Can you name me a climate scientist or a GCM that scientifically predicted this drop is sea level?

 

[IGBT]

alGore is an alarmist eco-KOOK who needs to be prosecuted for terrorist threats.

 

[sandorski]

Sea level has been trending higher for about the last 12,000 or so years. According to climate alarmist orthodoxy there's no way it should be dropping with the added CO2 that humans are emitting. Can you name me a climate scientist or a GCM that scientifically predicted this drop is sea level?

/facepalm

 

[halik]

alGore is an alarmist eco-KOOK who needs to be prosecuted for terrorist threats.

 

[NeoV]

holy Jesus Monovillage, and you wonder why people call your side of the discussion pathetic?

ANYONE looking at the graph sees one trend - UP

Yes, there are tiny dips along the way, like just after 1998 -but sure enough, that trendline is going up - and is still going up - I'm absolutely floored that you linked that as 'proof', and that you even 'lol'ed about it - really?

 

[IGBT]

Those scientists don't work without grant money. That's their monetary incentive. They come to the conclusion of whatever the grant money says.

and will cherry pick data/modify algorithms to support eco-KOOK values.

 

[NeoV]

you may want to actually read what 'climategate' was before you discuss cherry-picking data and modifying algorithms..

If you really want to see what 'cherry picking data' means, see Mono's graph reference...

 

[TehMac]

I think the first step is for the Great Announcers of deadly climate change, Mr Gore and his peons, is to not:

A) Have an enormous ranch in Tennessee renowned for its reduced taxes on real estate
B) Run massive energy bills on said ranch
C) Purchase water-front property 3 years after declaring the End was Nigh
D) Protest and Prevent the construction of Wind-Powered Mills on the ocean near said purchased water-front property.

It's clear that this new hype is just an excuse for the government to try to save you. I know all the mental inbreds, paranoid freaks, and sheer lunatics on this board can't (and won't) get a grip, but that's all it is.

An attempted shake-down by money-hungry cronies who can't earn a decent wage doing anything but selling snake oil.

 

[sandorski]

I think the first step is for the Great Announcers of deadly climate change, Mr Gore and his peons, is to not:

A) Have an enormous ranch in Tennessee renowned for its reduced taxes on real estate
B) Run massive energy bills on said ranch
C) Purchase water-front property 3 years after declaring the End was Nigh
D) Protest and Prevent the construction of Wind-Powered Mills on the ocean near said purchased water-front property.

It's clear that this new hype is just an excuse for the government to try to save you. I know all the mental inbreds, paranoid freaks, and sheer lunatics on this board can't (and won't) get a grip, but that's all it is.

An attempted shake-down by money-hungry cronies who can't earn a decent wage doing anything but selling snake oil.

Other than D(it barely squeaks by), all those points are Moot and based off Strawmen arguments.

a) WTF does Property Taxes have on this issue?
b) It's only the position of certain Deniers and extreme Nutter Left who suggest some drastic impact on Lifestyle. Most want a change in the Source of Energy and an Increase in Efficiency of its' use, not an end to Use.
c) Gore will be dead before the Property is at risk.
d) As memory serves, that had nothing to do with Gore and wasn't in proximity to Gore's Property in the first place. It was in a predominantly Liberal State and that was about the extent to it.

 

[monovillage]

holy Jesus Monovillage, and you wonder why people call your side of the discussion pathetic?

ANYONE looking at the graph sees one trend - UP

Yes, there are tiny dips along the way, like just after 1998 -but sure enough, that trendline is going up - and is still going up - I'm absolutely floored that you linked that as 'proof', and that you even 'lol'ed about it - really?

Yes, and it's been trending up for 12,000 years. How can you lay the blame for global warming or climate change on human activity? That's what we're talking about, anthropogenic climate change.

 

[Infohawk]

Yes, and it's been trending up for 12,000 years.

And how's the acceleration on that trend? That is the issue.

 

[SparkyJJO]

OK, ignoring the fact that you're kind of veering into conspiracy theory territory (I can't prove it, but it's POSSIBLE, so therefore it's true), I've never quite understood the alleged economic incentive behind supporting MMGW. Yes, you get a relatively small amount of money selling carbon credits (which most corporations could make money from), and there is a potential economic upside to funding alternative energy technologies. But there doesn't seem to be anywhere near the economic incentive the conspiracy would seem to require. And more importantly, it doesnt' seem to benefit enough of the right people. People act like it's just Al Gore pushing MMGW, ignoring the legion of scientists supporting the idea, for whom the economic incentive apparently requires some further conspiricies about scientific funding. And ignoring that the main opposition is from scientists who have political reasons to reject MMGW, people who aren't scientists at all, and people who aren't scientists who have a political motivation.

It's not always about the money.

It's also about CONTROL. Those in power want more. If they can regulate you, control you, more and more, plus get more money from you via more taxes to "offset" your "carbon footprint" then they will.

Come on, think about it - doesn't the whole idea of a tax that "offsets" carbon scream SCAM to anyone? Really? How can simply paying a little (or a lot) of money to the government have any effect in offsetting carbon? IT CAN'T.

 

[ShawnD1]

Climate change is a given, it's been happening since there was an atmosphere. Man made climate change is another matter entirely.

Yes we know humans can significantly change the environment (ex cadmium contaminated lakes where nothing grows). We've known that for quite a while. Now tell us why we should care about any of this. I don't live anywhere near the coast, so my house has 0% risk of being sunk when the water level goes up.

 

[werepossum]

Beware the prophet seeking profit.

I'll give the man one thing, he sure knows how to push the buttons of the faithful. Every time 'the cause' starts waning, he's there in the mix stirring things up.

To quote our dear leader, "I do think at some point you've made enough money." How much more do you need Al? How many more mansions, how many more beachfront estates?

What I really find most curious is that those that spurn organized religion don't realize that this cause, their cause, has all the same trappings.

Brilliant! If I didn't think it was so important to continuously remind people where Obama's aim lies, I'd take that as a signature.

 

[werepossum]

Yes, and it's been trending up for 12,000 years. How can you lay the blame for global warming or climate change on human activity? That's what we're talking about, anthropogenic climate change.

Simple - you start your chart in the Little Ice Age.

 

[jhbball]

Simple - you start your chart in the Little Ice Age.

Or, you listen to the majority of scientists.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yes, and it's been trending up for 12,000 years. How can you lay the blame for global warming or climate change on human activity? That's what we're talking about, anthropogenic climate change.

It moved at an extremely gradual rate for 2000 years, accelerated considerably in the 19th century, and again in the very late 20th century.

www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-es.html
www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5-2-4.html

Stating that it's been rising for 12,000 years without noting the recent acceleration of the trend is extremely dishonest. If you have a source that challenges the recent acceleration of it, please provide it.

 

[monovillage]

According to CU Sea Level Research Group the acceleration of sea level started in the late 1700's, or about the time of the ending of the Little Ice Age (referenced by werepossum above) not anthropogenic induced acceleration rise at all.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/recent-global-sea-level-acceleration-started-over-200-years-ago

 

[NeoV]

apparently the fight is against stupidity

if you can't see the very graphic rises that just so happen to tie directly to surges in man-made emissions, then this entire topic is beyond you.

And the guy picking on Gore's house - yes, he has a big house - this just in - he's a former VICE PRESIDENT. He's got offices there, staff that works there, security that works there - it's not a normal house - and on top of that, they have installed every 'green' friendly technology there is, from solar panels to a geo-thermal heating system. The house, in fact, gives power back to the local grid.

 

[SparkyJJO]

apparently the fight is against stupidity

if you can see the very graphic rises that just so happen to tie directly to surges in man-made emissions, then this entire topic is beyond you.

And the guy picking on Gore's house - yes, he has a big house - this just in - he's a former VICE PRESIDENT. He's got offices there, staff that works there, security that works there - it's not a normal house - and on top of that, they have installed every 'green' friendly technology there is, from solar panels to a geo-thermal heating system. The house, in fact, gives power back to the local grid.

Yeah, he installed the "green" stuff once he got bad rap for using so much and Bush's Texas ranch being more "eco-friendly" than his house was. He did it to try and save face more than anything.

 

[sm625]

All the roads and parking lots add up to a blacktop the size of the state of Georgia. So instead of the sun hitting green fields, it is hitting black asphalt. This alone should be raising the earth's temperature if anything we do raises its temperature. Humans also go through one cubic mile of oil per year. Most of which gets combusted. And if you've ever played with fire you'd know that just one cubic inch of oil burning is enough to release massive amounts of CO2. And we're talking about a cubic mile of oil. If that was going to have a disastrous effect on the planet then we would certainly know it by now. Now that we are so close to the absolute peak in oil production, I dont see why it matters. What really matters is what happens to the planet when oil production starts going down the other side of the peak. You think global_warming(tm) is bad you just wait till there is global_rioting_in_every_village(tm).

 

[ProfJohn]

We should admit that Al Gore does know a lot about racism since his dad voted against the Civil Rights Act.

And he knows a lot about global warming as well since his dad was chairman of a coal company and worked at a lawyer for an oil company.

 

[Paratus]

is on the same level as combating racism.

So says Al Gore. LOL

Oh I see your problem. You got a little fox news on you!