Al Gore: Go Greener in 5 Steps

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri May 02, 2008 9:44 pm

Snidely Whiplash;855158 wrote: The IPCC report was devised by a bunch of politicians who now want the whole world taxed as a result of that report, and trillions of dollars going straight to the U.N. supposedly to be used to combat G.W. , which isn't even a possibility, because there isn't a cure for the changes the planet goes through(because it's natural), only adaptation to those changes is possible, and we don't don't need the U.N. to help us with that..!!! When was the last time a politician, or more direct, the U/N did something to benefit the world, and not just themselves...??? What was the last thing they did with your money that they didn't pilfer most of it for themselves, and screw up whatever the original goal was..??? They are a totally useless bunch of greedy self centered corrupt world class gangsters, you know it and so does everyone else...!!!

You're sooooo Naive... There are major scientists, as well as authors of the ICPP report bailing from the end result that the U.N. put together from the many small contributions from each scientist, some are now suing to have they're names removed from this phony document, made up so the politicians of the world can reach they grubby greedy dirty little hands deeper into your pockets, and take more of your hard earned pay away...

Think about it..? Even if it was true, no one can do anything about GW if it were a danger, and nothing humans could do, even going back to living in caves would change a thing in the future... There’s not 1 single plan that will change anything worth mentioning, but still, they want to reach deep into your pockets, and keep you frightened so you won't feel their hands, taking away your money, your freedom and numbing your common sense... You might even praise them for it if they pull the blanket over your eyes far enough, and get you scared enough...?

There is well documented evidence from all over the world, not just from one source but hundreds or thousands in many cities, states, towns and countries all over the planet that show there's been no G.W. in the past decade, but the opposite, a drastic cooling trend that is continuing now... How does that fit into your IPCC report..???

You are the one with your head in the sand... And that sand hasn't been warming in a decade, only cooling............
Once again, I did the first and last sentence, I agree somewhat and disagee somewhat..

Snidely Whiplash · Post by **Snidely Whiplash** » Sat May 03, 2008 12:47 pm

If we must give up our peace of mind, and pay to taxes for what some say is an emergency and a dooms day scenario, and we must act right away, shouldn't we choose a threat that affects us today and our loved ones most in the next few generations to come in the future.......?

I would bet that cancer, and a long list of diseases we are fighting at present, as well as aids, islamic extremism, and the enemies around the world that wish us dead in they;re prayers, or heart disease or any number of diseases that we are close to curing, will kill more people in the next 10 generations than global warming, or lack therof will.....................

Do you people really want to put so much effort and your hard earned money into what amounts to so little...? Or ends in nothing at all........ When sooooo much threatens us right now, and threatens our families, our friends and people we know all over the world...???

We could do so much to end some of the things mentioned in my initial paragraph in this post, things that are threatening us RIGHT NOW and TODAY, and WILL take away from us many many people, our family, friends and loved ones in the next year for some, and for the rest of us at times through the rest of our lives.... :-1

Or we could put our efforts and money towards what some might think might happen via computer models that no one can prove, and are like pulling the handle of a dollar slot machine in Las Vegas, , even though there is NO PROOF except 100% FLAWED computer models that NO ONE can say are right without guessing....

I'd just like to save one person from cancer, rather than put that effort and money into what nobody knows is even real...???

Maybe ask that cancer victim what they think....???

Maybe that's the "reality" thats missing in this topic.....???

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun May 04, 2008 3:53 pm

Snidely: Evening.

Pulling my head out of the sand long enough to say that we can always argue about priorities: I'd probably argue for space exploration because the sooner we get a viable self sustaining colony off this planet the better -:wah:- but that's looking a loong way ahead

. Either way, it's a whole different argument.

Forgot to mention Pacific Islands sinking. What in the end convinces me that something crazy is going on with the climate is the variety of different evidence that seems to support it, though I find the IPCCs' science convincing enough insofar as I can follow and/or feel qualified to criticise it. It seems to me that you are getting hung up on one bit of evidence and not seeing a wider picture. Lord knows I hope I'm wrong.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun May 04, 2008 4:23 pm

fuzzy butt;856560 wrote: Volcanic islands in the pacific ocean come and go all the time . No one bothered about it before now. they are just adding to the hysteria.

Really? What were the previous five??? I haven't heard of one since Krakatoa, but that was a bit different, and anyway it's not the sort of thing I'd expect to hear about over here necessarily.

Snidely Whiplash · Post by **Snidely Whiplash** » Mon May 05, 2008 7:33 am

There was a report recently about a growing number of people world wide that are seeking, and need psychiatric help and even medication from their fears of global warming, and the changes taking place in the natural world¦ :wah:I fear some here might do well to follow that growing trend¦..

Why is it that just a few years ago this G.W. bs wasn’t even talked about..? Not until Al Gore came along and made his millions off you suckers, and now you’re politicians are reaching into your pockets trying to take more from you, and every business, company, special interest group and corporation is deviously taking advantage of “going green for their own profits and to make all of us feel sooooo guilty that we must buy their “green“ products¦ Not to mention the massive media hype, and the environmentalist nuts who take every opportunity to hold marches and protests, so they can all beat drums, and dance around in they’re painted up faces holding they’re crazy signs, to make us think they can somehow save the planet¦ LOL..!!!

I think some here should instead of searching for G.W. info, search for why the people who are preaching this flawed religion are doing so, and I bet it will be like splashing a glass of ice water in your face, when you see whats really behind all this¦..?

Cheers¦.

Snidely Whiplash · Post by **Snidely Whiplash** » Mon May 05, 2008 6:42 pm

Jester;856979 wrote: The research Ive done so far has led me to belive that the scientific profiters are the ones who benifit the most, they rob our tax dollars to keep themselves in the hierarchy of scientfic exploration its all about the grant money, foundation money and government tax dollar into the coffers of the scientific community and at the same time a few are trying to get some test or study or new phenomenon named after themselves... take Al Gore for instance, he is after notoriaety in his failed and boondoggled socialistic political campaigns, for him 'going green' is the new frontier of socialism.

You are a perfect example of an objective thoughtful mind that truely wants to understand and get to the heart of this phenomena... You're conclusions are absolutely correct...

But when emotion, hysteria and fear are pushed on us via everyone on the g.w. bandwagon, it clouds common sense and objective reasoning, and makes it hard to see fact from fiction...

Take care...

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue May 06, 2008 8:47 am

Ah well, at least I'll have the pleasure of saying, "I told you so" if I'm correct to be paying attention to what the scientific community as a whole is saying on the issue of global warming. That'll be a great comfort as we fry.

Major typhoon just hit Burma. Nothing to do with global warming of course. Just like the crop failures and the increasing instability of the El Nino/La Nina cycle, decreasing density of Himalayan glaciers and so on. All a global conspiracy to get grant money by the climatologists.

Honestly. We don't deserve to survive.

Snidely Whiplash · Post by **Snidely Whiplash** » Tue May 06, 2008 9:35 am

Clodhopper;858089 wrote: All a global conspiracy to get grant money by the climatologists.

Ugggg....

Sorry you can't see past your preconceptions and blurred distorted so-called facts.......

I really urge you with all sincerity to start seaching for the facts behind the "people" behind the global warming bs, and not the flawed science..... Theres nothing you can post science-wise that can't be distputed..... That;s why Al; Gore never debates anyone, and thats why the environmental groups can't debate anyone on the facts, they can't win.......

Please consider, if only in your free time when you have nothing to do, the facts on how this GW movement started, and what is powering it today.... Look at the people behind it, the groups, and look at why these people are going nutso over something that can't be proved, MUCH LESS be fixed, by your own standards of what must be done to correct you're so-called Global warming..?????

Clodhopper;858089 wrote:

Honestly. We don't deserve to survive.

Honestly, you really need to get some professional help..... PM me and I'll give you phone numbers of doctors and mental health care facilities in your area.......

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue May 06, 2008 9:50 am

Honestly, you really need to get some professional help..... PM me and I'll give you phone numbers of doctors and mental health care facilities in your area.......

Sorry, already regarded as incurable.

Something else for you to disregard:

The Wilkins Ice Shelf has been stable for most of the last century, but began retreating in the 1990s.

Six ice shelves in the same part of the continent have already been lost, says the British Antarctic Survey (BAS).

Professor David Vaughan of BAS said: "Wilkins is the largest ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula yet to be threatened.

"I didn't expect to see things happen this quickly. The ice shelf is hanging by a thread - we'll know in the next few days or weeks what its fate will be."

'Like an explosion'

BAS researchers were alerted to the break-up by daily monitoring of satellite images. They sent a Twin Otter aircraft on a reconnaissance mission to video what was happening.

This is yet another indication of climate change in the Antarctic Peninsula and how it is affecting the environment

Prof David Vaughan

Jim Elliott, who was on board the plane, said he had never seen anything like it before.

He said: "We flew along the main crack and observed the sheer scale of movement from the breakage.

"Big hefty chunks of ice, the size of small houses, look as though they've been thrown around like rubble - it's like an explosion."

A huge berg appears to be breaking away, with much of the Wilkins Ice Shelf protected only by a thin strip of ice spanning two islands.

Scientists say while the break-up will have no impact on sea level, it heightens concerns over the impact of climate change on this part of Antarctica.

'Unprecedented' warming

Professor Vaughan predicted in 1993 that the northern part of the Wilkins Ice Shelf would be lost within 30 years if climate warming continued. But he said it is happening more quickly than he expected.

He told BBC News: "What we're actually seeing is a chunk of the ice shelf drop off in a way that suggests it is not just a normal part of iceberg formation.

"This is not a sea level rise issue, but is yet another indication of climate change in the Antarctic Peninsula and how it is affecting the environment."

Scientists say the Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out into the Southern Ocean towards the tip of South America, has experienced unprecedented warming over the last 50 years.

Several ice shelves have retreated in the past 30 years - six of them collapsing completely.

Other researchers believe the Wilkins Ice Shelf may hang on a little longer, as Antarctica's summer melt season draws to a close.

Dr Ted Scambos of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado said: "This unusual show is over for this season. But come January, we'll be watching to see if the Wilkins continues to fall apart."

Quoted from BBC News Science/Nature, last updated 25th March 2008

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue May 06, 2008 4:48 pm

Jester: Tell me how?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue May 06, 2008 5:05 pm

Thank you.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue May 06, 2008 11:38 pm

Jester;858634 wrote: Thisis a good example of one of these stories...

Ok I have several questions:

Why havent we heard abotu the other 6 ice shelves that have already dissolved?

The BAS, a well respected body based on Cambridge, have been reporting the loss of these ice shelves. If we have not listened is that their fault and does it lessen the truth of this report?

Jester;858634 wrote: Why didnt the sea levels rise over the other ice shelves and why do they not expect the sea level to rise over the wilkins shelf IF it continues to receed?

These are floating ice shelves and not the land based glaciers. The melting of floating ice has very little effect of sea levels.

Jester;858634 wrote: I see nothing in this article to link this to man made causative factors for the regional warming that has caused this shelf to crack.

The fact that the BAS have been predicting that this will happen since 1993 as a result of global warming is a bloody good clue don't you think? This is a very short article and does not contain every dot and comma of their evidence.

Jester;858634 wrote: And the article and the headlines are slightly misleading and build up a sense that this shelf will be destroyed and then in the end it says the season for summer is over and they will have to see what happens next summer to see if there is any real damage but they "expected' earlier in the article for the whoel thing to disintegrate like the others?

The ice shelf is collapsing. The onset of winter has saved it from immediate collapse but with the spring thaws next year it is almost certain to go. How is this misleading or overhyped? In an article of that length they could hardly say it more clearly.

Jester;858634 wrote: Clod no disrespect to you but this is a typical hyped story that does not link this to man made global warming.

What do you want in a press release? The BAS is the major research body working in the area and their finding cannot be dismissed as hype on the grounds that they've briefly reported their findings before writing them up for peer review.

The very most they you can say is that there is not sufficient evidence in the paper as presented to come to a final judgement.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed May 07, 2008 1:55 am

Jester: Thanks for the instructions. I shall try it next time.

You can take Bryn's answers as mine, because I'd have said pretty much exactly what he did. The only thing I'd add is that while it is difficult to link any one piece of evidence with absolute certainty to man made global warming when you add it to other pieces of evidence - such as disappearing islands owing to rising sea levels - it becomes steadily harder (IMO) to dismiss as hype.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 07, 2008 2:38 pm

Here's a question for you then, Jester. The average toll in the US for "heat related deaths because of weather conditions" is around 200 a year (I quote a paragraph at the end with more exact details). I can't find a single year in the records for the US where more than 500 people have died of heatstroke. Presumably you'd expect that to continue to be the case if the weather systems aren't currently stressed. Let's make a big jump, a ten-fold increase beyond what's never happened so far, and consider your reaction if 5,000 people died of heatstroke in the US in a single month. Not a big enough jump? Shall we make it 50 times as many as the maximum there's ever been?

That's 25,000 US deaths in one month from heatstroke. I want you to tell me whether, if it happens, it would be anything to do with the increase in man-made airborne effluents or whether it would be purely natural. In your opinion. The way science works, in part, is that people make predictions of what an experimental system will do and the reason it'll do it, before they test it. So we're making a prediction.During 1979 - 2002, the most recent years for which national data are available, 4,780 deaths were classified as heat related because of weather conditions. Of the 4,686 (98%) heat-related deaths attributed to weather for which age of the decedent was reported, 260 (6%) occurred among children aged 65 years. During 1979--2002, heat waves with high mortality occurred in 1980 (St. Louis and Kansas City, Missouri), 1995 (Chicago, Illinois), and 1999 (Cincinnati, Ohio, and Chicago). During that period, the annual rate of heat-related deaths from weather conditions was highest among persons aged >65 years

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed May 07, 2008 4:01 pm

Jester: Perhaps there's a point of agreement here: We are seeing regional climate abnormalities. What they mean is the issue. I'm inclined to listen to the scientists saying climate change is happening, will be global though with some regions more affected than others, and we're responsible for it as a species. You're not. There's really not much more to be said at that point, but I'll continue to post stuff I think might be of interest on the subject.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 07, 2008 11:29 pm

Jester;859539 wrote: Spot, what has this to do with what I posted?

It's a direct continuation of what you and I were last saying in this thread. It obviously wasn't written in the 18 minutes between your previous post and my adding it to the thread, it's something I'd thought about for a couple of days. You're having several conversations here with several people, all on the topic of climate change.

It took me a while to focus on that question, it would be sad (from my perspective) to see it ignored.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 08, 2008 12:14 pm

I want you to tell me whether, if it happens, it would be anything to do with the increase in man-made airborne effluents or whether it would be purely natural. In your opinion.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 08, 2008 12:33 pm

Jester;860306 wrote: I have no idea.

You wouldn't find such an event unprecedented and alarming? It'd just be another news item? You think it's impossible?

Post by **spot** » Thu May 08, 2008 12:48 pm

Jester;860311 wrote: Sure, unusual and worth a full investigation of all possible causative factors.

So in your view, while it's never happened in the USA to within a factor of fifty, if it happened it wouldn't indicate that present weather systems are in uncharted territory as far as extreme events are concerned?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu May 08, 2008 1:37 pm

Jester;859579 wrote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 100441.htm

Regarding the wilkins iceshelf:

OK, I have been all over the web today looking at glaciers and finding facts as I can. Its very confusing to go back abd back track for information after a news artciel hits the media, the global warming efficianados flood the web with basicly the same damn article, over and over again, the less ainline themedia service the more information they share in quotations, one artcile claimed that the global temp rise along the wlkins ice shelf rose .9 degrees F per year decade for the past 50 years. The article quoted above written on February 11th after the glacier cracking and the hyped news releses is a back track article to do damage control and slow the hyped information conrtibuted ot these scientists, in essense as I read this, its them saying wait a minute, theres no evidence for certain for the media to say whats been said.

This article, by God knows who, shows verifiyable temperature logs from the two closest research centers which does not show any such temperature changes, and demonstrates that the temp has been well below the sea ice freezing level systematically since the 70's.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Wilkins ... lf_con.pdf

Im not a glacierologist, nor a scientist, but I will no longer ever ever take a 'global warming' media story at face value, bunch of lying bastards.

Jester, can you not see the bias, inconsistency and lack of logic in this reply?

A couple of posts ago you were condemning the BAS press release for not including a single temperature reading. Now you are presenting a report by "God knows who" where the main thrust of the argument is that the BAS claimed temperature readings are wrong. On top of this, the unsupported and unsubstantiated claims by "God knows who" are enough to have you calling the BAS a "bunch of lying bastards".

A couple of posts ago you suggested that I hadn't bothered to read the press release when you obviously have not read it yourself - for interest it is at :-

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press ... php?id=376

If you read it you'll find that the key claim the paper by "God knows who" is disproving ("In the past 50 years, the western Antarctic Peninsula has experienced the biggest temperature increase on Earth, rising by 0.5 degree Celsius (0.9 degree Fahrenheit)

per decade.") is never made by the BAS. Nothing approaching those words appear anywhere in the press release - it's easy to knock a claim when you invent it yourself.

For all that, the argument used is also false. "God knows who" argues that "The nearest research station for meteorological observations is San Martin, almost 400km away" but that is totally irrelevant - the BAS have been watching the area for decades and have their own observers on the ground rather than relying on distant met stations.

You are reading what you want to see rather than thinking about what is being presented to you. Rather than starting from the position that global warming is bullsh!t lets find evident to prove it, consider who is putting out real, peer reviewed studies and who is putting out unsubstantiated denials.

Ignore the pap in the general media whichever side it comes from - it is unreliable at best and deliberately deceitful at worst. Instead use the outline provided to go to reliable, peer reviewed, sources that publish verified science and compare the arguments and counter arguments - that is the only way to get a balanced opinion.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu May 08, 2008 3:31 pm

spot;860298 wrote: I want you to tell me whether, if it happens, it would be anything to do with the increase in man-made airborne effluents or whether it would be purely natural. In your opinion.

To be honest, I'd say it was evidence of global warming but not proof that it was man made.

Having said that, I've seen plenty of other evidence that does link global warming to man's activity - not just with CO2 emissions but across the board.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 08, 2008 3:34 pm

Jester;860400 wrote: I dont really know, if some pattern that we normally see changes consistantly or suddenly very dramitically its worth investigating.

It's what we did in Europe. We decided that the imbalance of atmospheric gases was responsible, we're beginning to address the long-term question of bringing them back into historically stable boundaries. Capitalism's fighting tooth and nail but then, Capitalism has no long-term interests at all.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu May 08, 2008 5:07 pm

Jester: I'm sure there are people out there posting opinion as fact. Happens all the time. The trick is to work out when people are doing this. I don't claim always to succeed! But I knew a bloke who worked for the BAS as a geologist years ago - around 1993 as a matter of fact - and the idea of him as a fanatic....no.

The BAS is not a collection of halfwits and crusaders and the BBC is, compared to other News broadcasters, pretty good at reporting its science. It's about as good as a layman like you or me is going to get, short of doing several years study in order to have the background science and techniques to criticise the collection, interpretation and maths of the data properly.

Snidely Whiplash · Post by **Snidely Whiplash** » Thu May 08, 2008 5:17 pm

I must say, all you scientists here sure do know your stuff...!!! You even post web pages and links to prove it all..!!! Whooooaaahhh...! :wah:

But what you're posting is only your opinion, as are the links or evidence I posted, or the opinions of the people who made the webpages, wrote the article, or submitted the study, none of it is necesarily fact, no matter how much anyone wants it to be, or believes it...?

To every link or reference posted to support man made GW, theres an equal webpage or article or survey that says just the opposite...

What some of the "thinkers" here are not doing is going beyond the surface of the text on your web links and info, and not searching for the reasons "why" we are being bombarded daily by this craze of doom and gloom, not just from use of oil or energy, but it's spreading like a mental illness into almost every part of our lives...? For instance, if theres a shark attack somewhere there hasn't been one before, some news article somewhere will blame it on global warming... Every forest fire, every hurricane, every tornado, every out of the ordinary rain storm somehow to a certain number of people must all be connected to global warming, and is somehow man's fault... And the sickest most twisted part of it is when they insist that "we must do something NOW"..! Meaning give our money to someone, or taxing the cost of things so that most won't be able to afford them much... You're letting these people rip you off and take away your standard of living, and whats worse is some of you sicko's are actually asking them to do it, NO, DEMANDING IT..!!!

I urge people to do detailed investigations on WHY this irrational and illogical mass hysteria is happening, and more importantly who are the people or groups most responsible for starting it and continuing to fuel it, and "what are they getting out of it for themselves".?

I think you will soon see that the truth is that this global warming hysteria is lining the pockets of some select people and groups around the world, and forcing many scientists, journalists and others to either go along with it, or be ostrisized and shunned by they're more politcally correct peers, and for many they're careers would be over.. This is especially true in the political arena, where world leaders and politicians are under huge pressure by the enviro-nuts and they're groups, who also have made a bundle of funding off this GW hysteria...

No matter how you slice it, or what you post in the way of proof, there is SO MUCH behind this movement that deserves investigation, and already so many lies have been told for profit as with Al Gore and others, that anyone who blindly falls for this charade is truely a fool.......

I read this quote in a very good article today, it wasn't proof af anything, just a very good article on this subject... http://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.c ... ming-push/

Have you noticed that most of the scientists that are coming out AGAINST man made GW are the older more experienced scientists that are near or at retirement, and have nothing to loose by voicing they're views, unlike the younger scientists who have a career and future to consider when they speak...? I think that is a very important red flag that should make alot of people stop and wonder what's beind this whole thing..??

If the UN controls, rations, and taxes energy, they will have the power to determine whether you can run a wood stove, whether you can run an automobile, or can use any of the technology that makes our modern life possible.

When you say this to people, their eyes glaze over. They don’t believe it’s going to happen.

The power to tax and ration energy is the power to control the world — to have life and death control over every human being on the planet. No government should ever have this power. The United Nations-IPCC process is not about the climate or saving the environment. It is about power and money — lots of it.

Should Gore and the UN succeed, the effect will not only be diminished prosperity in the United States. In underdeveloped countries, billions of people are lifting themselves from poverty by means of hydrocarbon energy. If their energy supplies are rationed and taxed, they will slip backwards into poverty, misery, and death. This fits the population control agenda of the United Nations.

If the misuse and falsification of the scientific method that drives the human-caused global-warming mania succeeds, it will cause the greatest acts of human genocide the world has ever known. It must be stopped.

:)

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu May 08, 2008 11:37 pm

Jester;860438 wrote: I was all over the net lookin at stuff, I guess I got cornfused on the temps and which article had them.

The PDF article shows no temp changes in the region, the original article posted claims a 3C increase right down on the ice shelf. The article posted below, by the same group as the original article admits there are other causative facters to ice shelf collapse. (talking about two different ice shelves).

Why do they not include the same causative factors to the press release in May? Because they want to prove global warming. They have an agenda, a scientist with an agenda is a dangerous thing in my book.

I still dont buy global warming. I see some evidence for local climate changes, but still no proof of global warming, and still there is no proven link to the local warming being manmade.

I'm not interested in forming a guess and pursuing it, Id rather study the phenomenon and ALL possible casuative factors, then if there is something we can change, and it makes sense to change it, then we should try.

It angers me that the agenda is so clearly before the facts are all in, I see manipulation of facts in order to prove they are right. And of course for more funds if you care to read the very last sentence several times.

OK what "proof" would you accept?

Every word that you post shouts out that you have made up your mind and you are sticking to it "before the facts are all in". Why is global warming an agenda that angers you when papers against it are God given truth?

The facts have been coming in for the past thirty years and the proof of global warming lies in the accuracy of those predictions. The weather model has been getting more accurate by the year and the situation maps well to the predictions made. If anything, the situation now is worst than predicted thirty years ago.

If an economist says we're headed into a u shaped slowdown which will include a short period of recession and this is what happens then you accept that the model used is accurate. If, on a longer timebase, if climatologists predict global warming with climate instability and that is what you see then you accept their model. Acceptance of the model includes acceptance of the factors used and their causes.

Ah, but I forgot, the economic predictions are politically inspired bunkum intended to change the course of the election. Ho hum

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri May 09, 2008 6:55 am

Jester;860888 wrote: Bryn,

I accept science when it is proven, not when it is based on an assumption of what may happen. The climatologists can barely predict weather two weeks out, and you want me to believe they can predict weather 20-30 and 50 years out?

I don't think so.

I'm reading through the very interestong article that Snidley posted, I suggest you read through it too.

http://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.c ... ming-push/

And it isnt that Ive made up my mind, its that I'm not assuming its the truth before there is conclusive proof.

The economy is another thread altogether.

Two points, firstly, if you want conclusive proof of anything then you'll be waiting for eternity - no science is conclusive, even gravity is only a theory not a proven mechanism.

Secondly, predicting the weather on a day by day basis is incredibly complex function of chaos theory whereas predicting weather trends is far easier and an altogether different task.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri May 09, 2008 9:23 am

Jester;861224 wrote: On your first point, gravity is a law of nature, there is enough physical evidence for it that it falls into a constant. I can accept that as a constant scientific fact. That is conslusive enough for me to accept and act upon. I'm not about to step over a cliff because I can see the effects of the natural law of gravity.

I'm very glad to hear you say that no science is conclusive. I've felt that for years. It takes great faith to believe the scientists.

Second point, :-2 Either way they do it regularly and are wrong more times than they are right, its a common thing to doubt the weatherman, in my neck of the wood growing up dad and gramps were the best weathermen I ever heard form and neither are climitologists.

So's ya dont think Im just being argumentative... I do get yer point, but I still don't buy the GW mythmakers. At this point we have local climate changes that are within typical limits for the life of mankind. (my pure opinion of course)

I disagree that it takes great faith to believe science - it takes logic and a realistic level of probability. I do not demand conclusive proof but I do look for at least 95% probability before accepting a theory. Also, theories interlock and, in order to have a platform to work on, new theories have to interlock with existing theories. Any discrepancies have to be explained and a decision taken as to which theory is flawed.

Gravity is not proven - we can see the effects but the mechanism is not tied down and provable.

Global warming is not proven - we can see the effects but the mechanism is not tied down and provable.

You are still hooked up on weather prediction rather than plotting a trend - it does not matter whether you Gramps can predict the weather over the next few days better then the met office when the problem is whether the climatologists can plot a trend from the observed conditions over the past several hundred thousand years.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri May 09, 2008 11:10 am

The climatologists can barely predict weather two weeks out, and you want me to believe they can predict weather 20-30 and 50 years out?

Wrong way round. It's much easier to predict general patterns a few years ahead than it is to predict the weather in a week's time.

It's pretty easy to say that if present conditions continue, then summers are going to have temperatures between this and that temperature. In contrast, it's very hard to say exactly how fast an individual low pressure system is going to cross between California and Virginia over the next few days. It's fairly easy to say that you can clean a house, on average, in two days, but very difficult to say how quickly you might be able to clean an individual property to that same standard. Half a day? three days?

If you say, for your business plan, that you can assume that you will clean houses in one day and you find that consistently it takes you two, then you readjust your plan (assuming you ain't broke!) because it doesn't fit the facts that you find - despite your previous experience. Clearly you are working in a messier town than you thought. Unfortunately the inhabitants of the town are saying, "Hang on! this isn't what you were saying last year: it's a conspiracy to make more money out of us. He said it would take six months to clean this place up, now he's charging us for a whole year. Lying bastard." This is the sort of thing is happening with climate. (Please note that no analogy is perfect)

Snidely Whiplash · Post by **Snidely Whiplash** » Fri May 09, 2008 9:04 pm

Sometimes when I read these debates between the gW fans, it sounds a lot like several chicken little's debating over how much of the sky is falling..??? LOL...

Here's a few links that you can ignore and dismiss because it doesn't fit your agenda and gW religious beliefs.... But of course, everyone is wrong except those who believe like chicken little from the old nursery rythme, that the sky is falling.... And we gotta all do something about right now...! :wah::wah:

The only point to my links is to point out that our planet is way overdue for another little ice age, and the real truth is that when that new cooling trend starts, nothing man can do will be able to stop it, no matter how many big dirty polluting SUV's we buy and drive, or how many hours we fire up our BBQ's for on the weekends.......

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... wanted=all

http://www.iceagenow.com/Solar_Scientis ... verdue.htm

http://www.red-alerts.com/homeland-secu ... w-ice-age/

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/glob ... 90591.html

http://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/2007 ... oming.html

http://www.mainarticles.com/Article/The ... osed-/4402