Election 2012 Is Comming

The 1977 article. Why would we believe people who cannot predict the tempurature tommorrow with any accuracy, when they tell us what the weather will be in 20 years.

OverMyHead wrote: The 1977 article. Why would we believe people who cannot predict the tempurature tommorrow with any accuracy, when they tell us what the weather will be in 20 years.

Once again you are putting out misinformation and showing your ignorance. I don't think you do it on purpose you've just been blinded by YOUR biases. The fact of the matter is that in the 70's most scientific papers were already predicting global warming.

Around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

Don't take my word for it check out the research yourself here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-basic.htm

And I think there are a lot of you who could learn a lot if you spent some time on this site instead of watching and reading your regular pundits.


Educate your mind. Good starting point for newbies.

If and only if you've read this stuff will I even begin to listen to your denial about global warming. You haven't looked at or learned anything about the data yet you still deny the science. If you did look at the science, perhaps you would begin to see how ridiculous your position on global warming is. Have you ever actually watched any global warming debates between scientists and the pundits who have convinced you that global warming is a hoax?

Phil , It is hard to look at the data when the people responsible for the studies are fighting the freedom of information act ans will not release it. if they are so beyond corruption and correct I would think they would gladley share it with everyone. No one has proved that global warming is man made. all they have proven is that we have weather. Always have and all ways will. The only constant about our limate is that it changes. I have looked at many studies. A few years ago a study published in the german version of science magazine studied glaciers in the Alps. They found wood fragments melting out of the glaciers. Carbon data revield that 7 diffeent periods during the last 55,000 years were warm enough that trees were growing where glaciers are now. You figure it out. Many studies seem to reveal that co2 follows global warming, not precedes it. A very recent study of global satalight cloud images shows clouds increase with co2 increase, not decrease like the global warming climate models ae showing. This one factor alone would decrease predicted warming by 30%. Remember a concensous of scientists stuck with the church when Galileo was saying the earth revolved around the sun. One man Galileo was right. A consensus is not science, it never has been. Science is proof that can be duplicated using the scientific method. A consensus is just a belief system or a religion.

Here is what an english court had to say about an inconvienient truth.

•The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
•The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
•The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
•The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
•The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
•The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
•The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
•The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
•The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
•The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
•The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth#ixzz1XEnqZu7r

OverMyHead wrote: Here is what an english court had to say about an inconvienient truth. •The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct. •The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years. •The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming. •The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case. •The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm. •The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility. •The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim. •The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia. •The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing. •The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration. •The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim. Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth#ixzz1XEnqZu7r

I've never seen the movie.

62 wood wrote:

Nice. Storms like this are caused by global warming.

I know it is snow, and cold, however, all storms are driven by heat, even global warming heat.

ononewheel wrote: I know it is snow, and cold, however, all storms are driven by heat, even global warming heat.

Your half way there Seth, storms are driven by the interation of hot AND cold air masses with each other.

ononewheel wrote: 62 wood wrote: Nice. Storms like this are caused by global warming. I know it is snow, and cold, however, all storms are driven by heat, even global warming heat.

....knew that was coming......



.

OverMyHead wrote: Here is what an english court had to say about an inconvienient truth. •The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct. •The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years. •The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming. •The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case. •The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm. •The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility. •The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim. •The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia. •The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing. •The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration. •The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim. Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth#ixzz1XEnqZu7r

OverMyHead,

You really are a bit of a hack job. You spew so much misinformation and lies you should just become a politician yourself. I looked into the movie and you should too before you go spouting your right wing lies!

"
The Legal Case

The film is also subject to attack on the grounds that Al Gore was prosecuted in the UK and a judge found many errors in the film. This is untrue.

The case, heard in the civil court, was brought by a school governor against the Secretary of State for Education, in an attempt to prevent the film being distributed to schools. Mr. Justice Burton, in his judgement, ordered that teaching notes accompanying the film should be modified to clarify the speculative (and occasionally hyperbolic) presentation of some issues.

Mr. Justice Burton found no errors at all in the science. In his written judgement, the word error appears in quotes each time it is used – nine points formed the entirety of his judgement - indicating that he did not support the assertion the points were erroneous. About the film in general, he said this:"

Read more here: OverMyHead Lies Again


Again,

Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence (emphasis added). The subject may use:

* simple denial - deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether
* minimisation - admit the fact but deny its seriousness (a combination of denial and rationalisation), or
* projection - admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility.

Hack job = Tea party supporter

Phil, I noticed you site wikipedia a lot. In my college AP writing class we were told we would hurt our grades if we sited wikipedia. Anyone can post anything on that site without revue for accuracy. Including Al Gore apologists. Did you watch the,video?      He said what he said. I know he mispoke, but it is funny, just like Dan Quail misspelling Potato after an aid gave him a misspelled cue card. Lighten up.

62 wood wrote: Global warming? its possible, but you can find as many websites that think its a hoax...... What we do has to have some kind of impact, the arguement is how much? WHO is going to change there lifestyle and go back to the caveman days? In my opinion Gore is one of the biggest hypocrits out there.

Possible? WTF? OK, so another one who disregards 97% of all evidence from the subject matter experts. You say there are as many websites against global warming but who is behind those denier websites? Political lobbyists, politicians, and bias radicals looking to push their self serving agenda. None, and I repeat NONE of the websites you have in mind are credible sources. Like I've mentioned earlier, this global warming debate only exists in the uninformed public, media, and politicians.

No one is asking or telling anyone to go back to the caveman days. And people are changing their lifestyles everyday.

Myself, I get SICK of the Dems -vs- Repubs dispute .... all the while WE take it in the shorts. MOST politicians dont have a clue anymore.......

Agree.

skicat2001 wrote: Phil cites alot of second and third person media.Which is liberal speaking with there freeking twist on it. Just like CNN, or MSNBC!! Hurry up 2012

What? Please point out the specifics you are referring to. Also, you should really read the article posted in the "Debt" thread. It describes you almost to a T. Though, I would imagine the article may be a bit long for you.

"Also around us is a prevailing anti-intellectualism and hostility to science; it is this group that defines "low-information voter" - or, perhaps, "misinformation voter.""

Michael Moore...theres another work of art...

A guy worth 50MIL says to the crowd of union members...

"The country is awash in wealth and cash,It's just not in your hands."

Al Gore...move over...   

.

phospher wrote: No, don't try and make light of these conversations after you have attempted to misinform the people here and then claim "I know he mispoke".

Phil, Of course I know he mispoke, e v e r y b o d y knows. I was making light when I brought up Al, You have said that I lied and twisted his words when in fact I posted the full video of his comments for every one to see. Al messed up, he twisted his own words, and made a missleading statement, no big deal, but it has become part of American culture to reference it. I saw a car company use last week on a bill board promoting their web site. In particular since you feel free to belittle my God I thought I would take a shot at one of yours, so I stuck it out there knowing that it would tweak you and give you a chance to show off your ability to be an irritating, arrogant name calling jerk. You exceeded my expectations.

As for wikipedia, its reputation in academia is tarnished, and it deminishes credability when used, your choice.