"GEOLOGISTS THINK WORLD MAY BE FROZEN UP AGAIN"
NY Times, Feb 24, 1895

"SCIENTISTS SAY ARCTIC ICE WILL WIPE OUT CANADA"
Chicago Tribune, Aug 9, 1923

*****Change Gears******

"AMERICA IN LONGEST WARM SPELL SINCE 1776, TEMPERATURE LINE RECOREDS 25 YEAR RISE"
NY Times, March 27, 1933

"Chicago is the front rank of thousands of cities throughout the world which have been effected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades."
Chicago Tribune, Nov 6, 1939


*****Change Gears******

"COLD WINTERS HOLD DAWN OF NEW ICE AGE"
Washington Post, Jan 11, 1970

"The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."
Science Magazine, 1975

"The Threat of a new ice age must stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."
Nigel Calder, Editor, New Scientist, 1975


*****Change Gears******

"WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!! GLOBAL WARMING WILL KILL US ALL"
Al Gore, 2006

Okay, that last one was a bit over the top... But reading about how back and forth "experts" and "scientists" have been over the years, or merely how the media PRESENTS mis-information... It is safe to say that this Al Gore movie is nothing more than a way for Mr. Gore to make money. Al knows that if there is no such thing as "global warming", then there is ALOT less money for him and people who get MILLIONS in funding. So what do you do when there is an unproven theory which is getting LOTS of money to you and your research? You MAKE SURE that there IS global warming, whether it is really there or not.

Too many people are getting rich off of this global warming B.S... i wish there could be a platform on which scientists could actually DEBATE this instead of just headline wars and conflicting media reports.

Here are some REAL Al Gore quotes:

" The scientists are virtually screaming from the rooftops now. The debate is over! There's no longer any debate in the scientific community about this."

" For a long time, the scientists have been telling us global warming increases the temperature of the top layer in the ocean, and that causes the average hurricane to become a lot stronger. So, the fact that the ocean temperatures did go up because of global warming, because of man-made global warming, starting around in the seventies and then we had a string of unusually strong hurricanes outside the boundaries of this multi-decadal cycle that is a real factor; there are scientists who point that out, and they're right, but we're exceeding those boundaries now."

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it,"

Oh really Al? No longer ANY debate? They are RIGHT huh? Present the TRUTH.. the TRUTH Al?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia disagrees:

"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
Bob Carter

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
Bob Carter

GORE MYTH #1:

Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists".

Wrong. Gore is in the major minority. Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies." This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

GORE MYTH #2:

CO2 Levels correlate with the Earth's atmosphere

Wrong. Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

GORE MYTH #3:

"Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap."

Wrong, and concluded by bogus expirements and data. "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlen explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says KarlÈn


Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

GORE MYTH #4

200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records

Wrong, merely stating something that happens normally on any given year. Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

More good stuff... here is a quote where Al Gore says its OKAY TO LIE in order to stress the importance of something:

"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." -- Al Gore

LMAO

Apparently he alleges an island near New Zealand disappeared under water but refused to meet with the residents of that island, who are all perfectly dry, thank you very much, when he was down there.

Ice age, Global Warming, which is it gonna be? Hmmm, personally I coulda swore pokemon was going to be the undoing of mankind, but whatever.

Apparently he alleges an island near New Zealand disappeared under water but refused to meet with the residents of that island, who are all perfectly dry, thank you very much, when he was down there.
I think what is really being said is that the island in question was evacuated because it was too dangerous to live in due to rising sea levels causing tides to encroach further and further into the landmass. For the smallest inhabited Pacific island, the name escapes me at the moment, having even a little tide encroachment onto the hundred acre island could effectively make the island unable to support a sizable population. So they would evacuate the island, but it's not like you can force people off.

I think what is really being said is that the island in question was evacuated because it was too dangerous to live in due to rising sea levels causing tides to encroach further and further into the landmass. For the smallest inhabited Pacific island, the name escapes me at the moment, having even a little tide encroachment onto the hundred acre island could effectively make the island unable to support a sizable population. So they would evacuate the island, but it's not like you can force people off.

Was it Tuvalu? Or something like that?

Was it Tuvalu? Or something like that?

No, it wasn't them either.
I checked, and they are high and dry.
http://www.truevalue.com/App_Images/header/TVSRSHlogo.gif

Carteret Islands (http://melbourne.indymedia.org/features/climate_change/)evacuated due to rising sea.

Torres Strait Islanders (http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/08/119708.php) facing annihilation from rising sea levels

Look at the dates in the "Changing Gears" section. The years were from 1895, 1923, 1933, 1939, 1970, 1975 and then 2006. The most recent headline was from over 30 years ago. Firstly, C02 levels have increased a huge amount from 30 years ago; secondly in 1975 we did not have the ice core samples which gave us insight back over 2000 years; thirdly, science has progressed a huge amount in the last 30 years. This is a horrible, absolutely unscientific ploy to warp people's opinions on the matter.

Too many people are getting rich off of this global warming B.S... i wish there could be a platform on which scientists could actually DEBATE this instead of just headline wars and conflicting media reports.
Don't we all

Here are some REAL Al Gore quotes:

" The scientists are virtually screaming from the rooftops now. The debate is over! There's no longer any debate in the scientific community about this."

" For a long time, the scientists have been telling us global warming increases the temperature of the top layer in the ocean, and that causes the average hurricane to become a lot stronger. So, the fact that the ocean temperatures did go up because of global warming, because of man-made global warming, starting around in the seventies and then we had a string of unusually strong hurricanes outside the boundaries of this multi-decadal cycle that is a real factor; there are scientists who point that out, and they're right, but we're exceeding those boundaries now."

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it,"

Oh really Al? No longer ANY debate? They are RIGHT huh? Present the TRUTH.. the TRUTH Al?
There is no longer intelligent debate on the issue of whether or not global warming is happening. There is only debate on the degree of effects that we will see.

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia disagrees:
Notice that he disagrees, but offers no evidence, nor does he offer a response to the evidence given by Gore. In other words, he has offered nothing to the debate.

GORE MYTH #1:

Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists".

Wrong. Gore is in the major minority. Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Evidence? I find this statement very, very hard to swallow. Regardless, popularity does not define science.

GORE MYTH #2:

CO2 Levels correlate with the Earth's atmosphere

Wrong. Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
There are many factors that effect the global temperature. CO2 is one of them.

Also, the article states that Tim Patterson is a paleoclimatologist. He's not. He's a professor of geology. Which is also amusing, since earlier this article was bashing the other side for citing scientists that were not climatologists. The article seems like it's more full of BS the more I that read it.

Also, the title of the 'myth' makes perfect sense. "CO2 Levels correlate with the Earth's atmosphere". Well no shit they correlate! CO2 levels ARE PART of the fucking atmosphere, of COURSE the correlate with it. The title should be trying to quote Gore saying something on the lines of "C02 levels directly correlate with global temperatures." That's the issue that they are arguing.

GORE MYTH #3:

"Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap."

Wrong, and concluded by bogus expirements and data. "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlen explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says KarlÈn
Well you dumbshit 'scientist', explain the rising sea levels then. 'tard.

"Since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 3 mm/yr"
-http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/425.htm
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

GORE MYTH #4

200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records

Wrong, merely stating something that happens normally on any given year. Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Wait wait. He says 'wrong'. And they he validates what Gore said! And then he goes on to say that setting new records is not unusual. Well if that's true then he is stating that we have reached more constant, record setting temperatures. So, not only is he saying that Gore is right, he's saying that temperatures are now consistantly higher than ever.

This is one of the worst arguements I have seen against global warming.

Great points, WindWip.

Some people will still not believe in global warming no matter what happens just because they percieve it as somehow associated with "liberals".

There is no longer intelligent debate on the issue of whether or not global warming is happening. There is only debate on the degree of effects that we will see.

Obviously there IS intelligent debate because many highly credible people disagree with the global warming theory.

Let's make sure we are on the same page... I have no problems saying the earth is in the midst of a WARMING CYCLE, but the global warming theory isn't about cycles.. it says that we are causing our planet to kill itself, when for millions of years our planet has gone through the SAME CYCLES it is going through now, with MUCH MORE EXTREME SAMPLES of warming than we have seen... but yet for some reason Al Gore makes it seem "out of place" and the media and some liberals bite.


Notice that he disagrees, but offers no evidence, nor does he offer a response to the evidence given by Gore. In other words, he has offered nothing to the debate.

Bob Carter slams Gore, no doubt, but you must have missed that he did give response to the "evidence" given by Gore.

Gore says: The scientists are virtually screaming from the rooftops now. The debate is over! There's no longer any debate in the scientific community about this.

Carter says not only are Gore's "scientists" unqualified, but they don't eve specialize in the field being discussed. I could ask John MacEnroe about Basketball shooting form all day, but any sports fan won't give a damn because Johnny Mac was a Tennis player.

Evidence? I find this statement very, very hard to swallow. Regardless, popularity does not define science.

popularity DOESN'T define science.. so why does Al Gore get to use the argument but when i call him out on it, i am labeled as trying to do so? I merely presented that MANY scientists disagree with Gore's findings, even though Gore lied and said "the debate is over"...

There are many factors that effect the global temperature. CO2 is one of them.

Also, the article states that Tim Patterson is a paleoclimatologist. He's not. He's a professor of geology. Which is also amusing, since earlier this article was bashing the other side for citing scientists that were not climatologists. The article seems like it's more full of BS the more I that read it.

Also, the title of the 'myth' makes perfect sense. "CO2 Levels correlate with the Earth's atmosphere". Well no shit they correlate! CO2 levels ARE PART of the fucking atmosphere, of COURSE the correlate with it. The title should be trying to quote Gore saying something on the lines of "C02 levels directly correlate with global temperatures." That's the issue that they are arguing.

I agree that you should hold all scientists to the same standards.

And as for your CO2 argument.. you probably worded it better, but obviously Gore is trying to say that humans are causing the rise in temperatures.. which is bunk because on a grand scale our CO2 levels aren't that high compared to other points in history.

Well you dumbshit 'scientist', explain the rising sea levels then. 'tard.

"Since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 3 mm/yr"
-http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/425.htm
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

Rising sea levels can happen for multiple reasons.. if the thickness of the arctic ice isn't any different, then it surely isn't from there. It must be something else.. right?



Wait wait. He says 'wrong'. And they he validates what Gore said! And then he goes on to say that setting new records is not unusual. Well if that's true then he is stating that we have reached more constant, record setting temperatures. So, not only is he saying that Gore is right, he's saying that temperatures are now consistantly higher than ever.

I said he was "wrong" because he is merely trying to scare people with a fact that is PERFECTLY NORMAL in a yearly cycle. It is in NO WAY an argument to try to prove global warming.. it's a natural, repeating occurance, it will happen again next year, it happened in 1940, places DO set record-high's in temperature on occasion, did you know that?... it's like saying global warming is happening because the temperature rose a few degrees in the last hour.. well no shit, that's NATURAL. It HAPPENS in the normal world of nature and in our environment.

This is one of the worst arguements I have seen against global warming.

I disagree.. thanks for your replies because i surely didn't post this for it to be ignored, we just happen to disagree on some of the points... oh well, it's a discussion board, it happens.

Some people will still not believe in global warming no matter what happens just because they percieve it as somehow associated with "liberals".

Nice try, put the paint brush down and quit painting me as a "liberal-hater".. i have friends that are liberals, but they seem to be alot more in tune with reality that some of the ones i talk to on here.

quit painting me as a "liberal-hater"..

I don't have to.

You do that all by yourself.

Obviously.

Maybe i just verbally collide with most of the liberals on here, but hey I have many liberal aquaintances and friends.. so that puts a massive hole in your theory.

Maybe it's not the "liberal" part, maybe it's the "they happen to be dumb" part

Obviously there IS intelligent debate because many highly credible people disagree with the global warming theory.

Ok, well first your original quote from Gore doesn't say which debate is over. There are many issues at hand here. One of them is the issue of global warming, another is the 'debate' on whether C02 adds to increasing temperatures.

There is no debate in the scientific community on whether CO2 adds to increasing temperatures. It does, and every decently educated person knows that.

The other issue is on whether there is such a thing as global warming. Let's define that here:

global warming
–noun
an increase in the earth's average atmospheric temperature that causes corresponding changes in climate and that may result from the greenhouse effect.

Huh... well what do you know. That's happening right now. Call it a cycle if you want, but that still fits the definition there.

Let's make sure we are on the same page... I have no problems saying the earth is in the midst of a WARMING CYCLE, but the global warming theory isn't about cycles.. it says that we are causing our planet to kill itself, when for millions of years our planet has gone through the SAME CYCLES it is going through now, with MUCH MORE EXTREME SAMPLES of warming than we have seen... but yet for some reason Al Gore makes it seem "out of place" and the media and some liberals bite.
Aaaah. So we are discussing to what degree global warming effects us.

First, global warming does directly relate to the cycles you are talking about. If we didn't take into account the issues that affect the temperature of the planet, then it wouldn't be very good science would it?

Second, we have never had as fast increases in levels of CO2, and if you don't believe that temperature and CO2 are related, take a look at the information gathered from the Vostok Ice core.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png


Bob Carter slams Gore, no doubt, but you must have missed that he did give response to the "evidence" given by Gore.

Gore says: The scientists are virtually screaming from the rooftops now. The debate is over! There's no longer any debate in the scientific community about this.

Carter says not only are Gore's "scientists" unqualified, but they don't eve specialize in the field being discussed. I could ask John MacEnroe about Basketball shooting form all day, but any sports fan won't give a damn because Johnny Mac was a Tennis player.
Umm... The 'evidence' that Carter responds to isn't evidence. It's simply talking about opinion. It seriously means nothing. It didn't mean anything when Gore said it either.

popularity DOESN'T define science.. so why does Al Gore get to use the argument but when i call him out on it, i am labeled as trying to do so? I merely presented that MANY scientists disagree with Gore's findings, even though Gore lied and said "the debate is over"...
I never said that when Gore used it that he proved anything. He didn't.

I answered the debate issue earlier.

I agree that you should hold all scientists to the same standards.
I agree. I will call you on invalid sources and I hope you do the same for me.

And as for your CO2 argument.. you probably worded it better, but obviously Gore is trying to say that humans are causing the rise in temperatures.. which is bunk because on a grand scale our CO2 levels aren't that high compared to other points in history.
Temperatures aren't that high either, yet. However there IS a direct relationship between CO2 and temperature. Increase CO2 enough and you will have a full-blown greenhouse.

Also, Gore has evidence on his side when he says that we have increased CO2 levels. Look at the most recent years:

http://carto.eu.org/IMG/arton2503.jpg

Rising sea levels can happen for multiple reasons.. if the thickness of the arctic ice isn't any different, then it surely isn't from there. It must be something else.. right?
Please elaborate. How else can the sea levels rise?

I said he was "wrong" because he is merely trying to scare people with a fact that is PERFECTLY NORMAL in a yearly cycle. It is in NO WAY an argument to try to prove global warming.. it's a natural, repeating occurance, it will happen again next year, it happened in 1940, places DO set record-high's in temperature on occasion, did you know that?... it's like saying global warming is happening because the temperature rose a few degrees in the last hour.. well no shit, that's NATURAL. It HAPPENS in the normal world of nature and in our environment.
Records are being set, no? Gore wasn't wrong then. I'm sure you meant to say he was misrepresenting the data. Still, he wasn't. Look at how many records were set in prior years. You won't find as many.

I disagree.. thanks for your replies because i surely didn't post this for it to be ignored, we just happen to disagree on some of the points... oh well, it's a discussion board, it happens.
Hahhaha, yes well I most definitely would not ignore that. I come here for the discussions, though for some reason I though that you posted an article as opposed to writing that yourself. I would have been a little more civil had I known.

Ok, well first your original quote from Gore doesn't say which debate is over. There are many issues at hand here. One of them is the issue of global warming, another is the 'debate' on whether C02 adds to increasing temperatures.

There is no debate in the scientific community on whether CO2 adds to increasing temperatures. It does, and every decently educated person knows that.

The other issue is on whether there is such a thing as global warming. Let's define that here:

global warming
–noun
an increase in the earth's average atmospheric temperature that causes corresponding changes in climate and that may result from the greenhouse effect.

Huh... well what do you know. That's happening right now. Call it a cycle if you want, but that still fits the definition there.

Okay, well then we need to coin a new term because i agree that the globe might be "warming" at the moment.. but i don't really buy into Al Gore's "global warming" phenomena.. Like i said, cycles on our planet have been happening for billions of years...

http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/co2_var2.jpg

You might ask.. why is Decka putting up an image that ACTUALLY SAYS that the CO2 levels are rising since and because of the industrial revolution???

Well, if you take that out, you see that Co2 levels have gone WAY up and WAY down WITHOUT the industrial revolution... so WTF? Why does THIS rise get blamed on us? I think i mainly disagree with the severity of people like Al Gore's claims. On the base level i will say that yea our fossil fuel emissions DO have an effect on the environment and the temperature and all that crap. The question is how much? I say a VERY MINUTE percent of the planet's warming is because of our gas guzzling cars.



Umm... The 'evidence' that Carter responds to isn't evidence. It's simply talking about opinion. It seriously means nothing. It didn't mean anything when Gore said it either.

Its a "well informed opinion".. i agree its not concrete hardcore data.. but FT and others seem to use "expert opinions" on a daily basis and post article after article slamming somebody and take it as fact. Take it for what it's worth, if it's worth nothing to you, than just ignore it.

I never said that when Gore used it that he proved anything. He didn't.

I never said YOU were an Al Gore supporter.. i'm just merely arguing AGAINST Mr. Gore because it is my belief that he is purposely lying about global warming to get more funding and more money. He even admitted that its okay to do that kind of stuff.. i have the quote on my first post.


I agree. I will call you on invalid sources and I hope you do the same for me.

good


Please elaborate. How else can the sea levels rise?

I don't know, but some people seem to think the arctic ice caps aren't as in bad shape as they are made out to be. They ARE melting, but that is because, supposedly, the sun is shining brighter than it ever has in the last 1000 years. Mars's ice caps are melting too, and obviously there are no humans on mars. You can't blame the ice caps melting on us humans.


Records are being set, no? Gore wasn't wrong then. I'm sure you meant to say he was misrepresenting the data. Still, he wasn't. Look at how many records were set in prior years. You won't find as many.

I say he is misrepresinting it.. other scientists have said that the number of records set isn't any different at all, no dramatic rise.


Hahhaha, yes well I most definitely would not ignore that. I come here for the discussions, though for some reason I though that you posted an article as opposed to writing that yourself. I would have been a little more civil had I known.

No problem, feel free to reply to my stuff anytime.. i mean, how do you find out if you're right or clear headed without listening to other viewpoints? If you say you are always right, it's pretty much a fact that you're not.

Some people will still not believe in global warming no matter what happens just because they percieve it as somehow associated with "liberals".
That's true.

They do carry quite a stigma...

The vast majority of intelligent people believe that global warming is associated with human activity, only conservatives seem to have a problem grasping this issue.

The vast majority of intelligent people believe that global warming is associated with human activity, only conservatives seem to have a problem grasping this issue.

proof?

Okay, well then we need to coin a new term because i agree that the globe might be "warming" at the moment.. but i don't really buy into Al Gore's "global warming" phenomena.. Like i said, cycles on our planet have been happening for billions of years...

http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/co2_var2.jpg

You might ask.. why is Decka putting up an image that ACTUALLY SAYS that the CO2 levels are rising since and because of the industrial revolution???

Well, if you take that out, you see that Co2 levels have gone WAY up and WAY down WITHOUT the industrial revolution... so WTF? Why does THIS rise get blamed on us? I think i mainly disagree with the severity of people like Al Gore's claims. On the base level i will say that yea our fossil fuel emissions DO have an effect on the environment and the temperature and all that crap. The question is how much? I say a VERY MINUTE percent of the planet's warming is because of our gas guzzling cars.

I used that exact graph in my prior arguement. It does show that CO2 levels rise and fall without our interference. I never disagreed with that.

Look closely at the left portion of that graph. That is the most recent data. Look at the last 50 years, the portion in black. That is simultanious with the industrial revolution, whereas the rest of the graph depicts cycles which are roughly 100,000 years each. Again, in case you overlooked it, the industrial revolution till now has roughly half of a normal cycle's increase in 50 years. In case you are still trying to argue that it is simply part of a cycle look at the earlier cycles. In the previous cycles, that much change took about 15-20,000 years. We're looking at 50 years for the same amount of change. That's a fucking huge difference.

I never said YOU were an Al Gore supporter.. i'm just merely arguing AGAINST Mr. Gore because it is my belief that he is purposely lying about global warming to get more funding and more money. He even admitted that its okay to do that kind of stuff.. i have the quote on my first post.
Alright, but really does it matter what Gore says? All he's doing is bringing up an issue, and we're discussing that issue. I care about global warming, I don't really care about Gore.

I don't know, but some people seem to think the arctic ice caps aren't as in bad shape as they are made out to be. They ARE melting, but that is because, supposedly, the sun is shining brighter than it ever has in the last 1000 years. Mars's ice caps are melting too, and obviously there are no humans on mars. You can't blame the ice caps melting on us humans.
Do you have a source for the sun being hotter? This is the first I've heard of that. If that was the case, then the rising sea levels would be because of the melting ice caps (btw I didn't say whether the melting ice caps were because of us or not, I just said that the caps were melting, which they were/are).

btw, yes the ice caps on Mars have melted, but Mars has an entirely different atmosphere and different cycles of it's own. There are just too many unknowns to use Mars' temperatures as a comparison to Earth's temps.

I say he is misrepresinting it.. other scientists have said that the number of records set isn't any different at all, no dramatic rise.
Regardless of if he's right or wrong, does it really prove anything? So some records are being set. So what? It doesn't prove or disprove anything, and I would hardly use it as evidence.

The vast majority of intelligent people believe that global warming is associated with human activity, only conservatives seem to have a problem grasping this issue.

So what? That doesn't make it right. The majority of the intelligent population thought that the Earth was flat too. Evidence is what you need to prove something, not popularity.

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth

proof?

Thanks for enlightening us, Decka. It's impressive how a person who has no education in the area of climatology can refute the EPA's conclusions and the U.N.s panel of expert opinions on climate change by linking us to "canadafreepress.com." What would we do without you?

www.epa.gov

http://www.ipcc.ch/

P.S. You still haven't actually watched "An Inconvenient Truth" yet, have you?

P.P.S. Al Gore didn't come up with the prospect of global warming. It's been well-known for a long time that certain gases contribute to a warmer atmosphere and someone did a study showing a definite increase of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere since the 1950's or 40's. It didn't take a genius to figure out, "Hey, we might be making the planet warmer." Since then, a LOT of evidence has been accumulated to back up that hypothesis....hence, the people who study it for a living are in agreement on the issue.

The vast majority of intelligent people believe that global warming is associated with human activity, only conservatives seem to have a problem grasping this issue.


Correction, only conservative Americans.

It's been well-known for a long time that certain gases contribute to a warmer atmosphere and someone did a study showing a definite increase of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere since the 1950's or 40's. It didn't take a genius to figure out, "Hey, we might be making the planet warmer."

True, it doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out that,-- "Hey, we might be making the planet warmer".

But it seems to me that it takes an ignoramus --or a person with some sort of psychosis when it comes to scientific research, or a person who is being willfully blind-- to flatly deny it.

Again.. i say two things.. if you want to know where i stand

1. The earth goes in warming and cooling cycles...

2. We might TECHNICALLY have an impact on the environment, but it is very small and not worth the fear-mongering that people LIKE Al Gore are making it out to be.

I just use Al Gore as an easy target, i know he's not the only one

And to answer the other question, Yes i've seen the movie...

Again.. i say two things.. if you want to know where i stand

1. The earth goes in warming and cooling cycles....

I refer you to WindWip's excellent graph, and explanatory comment---

""Look closely at the left portion of that graph. That is the most recent data. Look at the last 50 years, the portion in black. That is simultanious with the industrial revolution, whereas the rest of the graph depicts cycles which are roughly 100,000 years each. Again, in case you overlooked it, the industrial revolution till now has roughly half of a normal cycle's increase in 50 years. In case you are still trying to argue that it is simply part of a cycle look at the earlier cycles. In the previous cycles, that much change took about 15-20,000 years. We're looking at 50 years for the same amount of change. That's a fucking huge difference.""

but yet the levels we are at now aren't the most we've ever had... according to the article i was reading we've had much higher numbers than what we do now.. was there an industrial revolution a few million years ago that i didn't know about?

but yet the levels we are at now aren't the most we've ever had...

The data says different.

... was there an industrial revolution a few million years ago that i didn't know about?

No, there was more volcanic activity then we have today. Increased levels of CO2 today are partly due to industrial sources, but they are made much worse by massive deforestation of the Earth's rainforests and pollution of the oceans. So the theories go. :)