35 Flaws in Gore's Movie

There was a man on PBS last week saying that the glacier he had studied for 20 some years was INCREASING in size...Naturally, this was due to the "sometimes unusual effects of global warming"....Geeze Louise! can people just say whatever they want and be taken 4serious. When it comes to the enviro, it would seem that way.

Global warming leads to greater humidity in the air and could lead to greater rainfall in some areas. Science is complicated, sorry if it doesn't translate well into simple sound bites.
 
Global warming leads to greater humidity in the air and could lead to greater rainfall in some areas. Science is complicated, sorry if it doesn't translate well into simple sound bites.

errr......isn't rainfall typically above freezing? Yet it makes glaciers grow?
Science is complicated, indeed.
 
I was trying to dumb it down for you guys, but I suppose the word precipitation is more accurate.
 
I'm not an expert, but don't tree's reduce Co2 ? and doesn't reducing Co2 reduce global warming ? So if i cut down trees..that means global warming increases right ? But of course, It'll be a correlation..
 
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/22/america/NA-GEN-US-Glacier-Plane.php

Google search terms: airplanes world war glacier greenland

A World War II fighter plane once entombed under several hundred feet (nearly 100 meters) of snow and ice in Greenland is back in the skies to complete a mission it began nearly 65 years ago.

Over the last 65 years, the Greenland glacier piled on about five feet of ice per year. Not only does this tend to make people believe in global cooling, it also tends to show that the ice in that glacier might only be a thousand to two thousand years old. Old ice melts where it is in contact with the earth and is squeezed out from underneath.
 
errr......isn't rainfall typically above freezing? Yet it makes glaciers grow?
Science is complicated, indeed.

Actually, rainfall starts as ice crystals and melts on the way down if it's warm enough. Glaciers receive pretty much the same kind of precipitation as people in the tropics do, it just stays frozen.
 
metakron said:
Not only does this tend to make people believe in global cooling, it also tends to show that the ice in that glacier might only be a thousand to two thousand years old.
Creationist websites never get their facts straight. Glaciers are not dated by ice depth - there are other methods, and the Greenland ice is many, many thousands of years old.
metakron said:
Old ice melts where it is in contact with the earth and is squeezed out from underneath
The recent increase in the Greenland melting is on top, of the youngest ice and snow. The rock under most of the Greenland cap is not nearly warm enough to melt ice.
truthseeker said:
It's obvious that the levels of greenhouse gases has increased due to humans. The question, however, is whether we have caused a significant increase.
The CO2 increase we have caused has been measured, at the Mauna Loa station among others, and found to be more than a third in the past couple of hundred years, and possibly accellerating.

That is significant.
 
The CO2 increase we have caused has been measured, at the Mauna Loa station among others, and found to be more than a third in the past couple of hundred years, and possibly accellerating.

That is significant.
You obviously didn't read what I wrote.

If you say it increased by X, that is not enough information to confirm it is significant. You must have a Y to measure against. You must know how much air there is in the atmosphere and compare the increase against the air. It may seem significant, but you must also look at how big it is compared to the wholr system.
 
truthseeker said:
If you say it increased by X, that is not enough information to confirm it is significant. You must have a Y to measure against.
The X of current CO2 concentration is measured agaisnt the relevant Y of former CO2 concentration.

Are you claiming that because CO2 is only a small percentage of the atmosphere, it is insignificant?
 
Because of a few fanatical people on another forum which will not be named, I did some research on the general points which were often raised and the article is clearly wrong in many places. Unless official sources are wrong. As far as I am aware, only NINE points were found to be wrong and even then it was more a matter of not proven rather than wrong on most of them.

We have a series of global effects, ice melting, more and stronger storms, etc and it is a bit beyond coincidence that they are all happening now. Tens of thousands of scientists, weather experts and such have put it down to man-made global warming, despite the efforts of a few countries which have watered down reports. I think we can assume that these experts had enough sense to look at long term trends, the last century, the sun, etc and not make the most elementary mistakes many of the deniers claim they have.
 
Truthseeker. The thing about CO2 is it is seen as the one that we can do something about. It is also said that some areas of water are now nearing saturation and (very recently) are not taking in as much CO2 as previous years. Of course we could kill all cows but that is not going to happen. We can do nothing about wetlands or water vapour content of the atmosphere. We could stop cutting down rain forests to plant biofuels (doh!). We could even have people plant new forests and other vegetation on empty lands or grass lands.

Then again, we could ask America, China and India to stop wrecking the planet. If even half of worse becomes worse, those countries are going to suffer too.
 
All the liberals are lying to themselves, even if we hypothetically stopped all man-made CO2 emissions everything would happen just as it has for the millions of years on Earth, as the previous graphs have shown. I mean 325,000 years ago there was a greater temperature change in a shorter duration...does that mean it was man-made CO2 back then too?

Liberals enjoy throwing everyone into falsely believing in irrational fears

Storms, temperature increases, etc...have beeen going on for millions of years on Earth before humans

Sorry liberals, if we stopped all CO2 emissions today permanently, nothing would really noticably change, just as in the past, there will still be great storms, temperature increases, droughts, etc...maybe all those ancient droughts were also caused by man-made CO2 right? Remember in the 1870s when there was record high temperatures? Maybe that too was also man-made CO2? ROFL

The fact is it's very easy to see false correlations, you see the temperature naturally increases and decreases, if it happens to rise automatically the liberals say it must mean man-made CO2, the liberals would say the the summer time was caused by CO2 if they could
 
Last edited:
He never said he did.



It's not false. The IPCC says it's extremely likely:

The combined anthropogenic RF [Radiative forcing] is estimated to be +1.6
[–1.0, +0.8]2 W m–2, indicating that, since 1750, it is extremely
likely
that humans have exerted a substantial warming
influence on climate. This RF estimate is likely to be at least
five times greater than that due to solar irradiance changes. For
the period 1950 to 2005, it is exceptionally unlikely that the
combined natural RF (solar irradiance plus volcanic aerosol)
has had a warming influence comparable to that of the combined
anthropogenic RF.


http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf

----------------------

Indicators of the human influence on the atmosphere

02.01.jpg

Innumerable meterologists, and scientists have voiced their concern that global warming being caused by man is "ridiculous"

You intentionally chose a biased source, I can give you lots of sources that say the opposite
 
It's not ridiculous. The Nobel Prizewinning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the most respected scientific body pertaining to this issue on Earth.

The recent rise in CO2 has been analyzed, and they found that the molecules contain the signatures of OLD carbon, so it must come from fossil fuels, not more recent natural sources.
 
It's not ridiculous. The Nobel Prizewinning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the most respected scientific body pertaining to this issue on Earth.

The recent rise in CO2 has been analyzed, and they found that the molecules contain the signatures of OLD carbon, so it must come from fossil fuels, not more recent natural sources.

Right...but all that CO2 analysis shows is that fossil fuels are in the atmosphere....not causation, not anything, I mean absolutely nothing, remember the same things were said about global cooling

Tell me spidergoat, how do you liberals explain this:
http://www.niwa.cri.nz/news/mr/2005/2005-08-30-1
http://www.cnsnews.com/ForeignBureaus/archive/200502/FOR20050216a.html
http://newsbusters.org/node/13798

That's right, glaciers are GROWING, the global warming hoaxers (the liberals) said in 2002 those very same glaciers would be shrinking, but they're not, I guess it must be a causeless coincidence :rolleyes:

The SAME glaciers predicted to shrink by the global warming hoaxers were the SAME glaciers that expanded and grew, how can this be?

My question is how can you legitmately distinguish between natural occurences and ones supposedly caused by man? The record high temperatures in the 1870s weren't caused by man-made CO2, but if those same record-high temperatures were broken today it would automatically be labeled as a sign of man-made CO2, you can't tell if it wasn't just a natural occurence....false correlation is so easy to see with these global warming hoaxers
 
Here's what a panel of over 17,000 scientists said about global warming (from the Oregon Institute):
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate ''
 
:roflmao:
:bravo:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology."
 
:roflmao:
:bravo:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology."
Its convenient to quote liberally edited wikipedia sources

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

This is a typical liberal refutation, claim the scientist are crazy, but authenetic investigation shows:
- 2/3 had advanced degrees
- 2,660 were physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists
- 5,017 were scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences

This beats the hell out of Al Gore's libereally selected scientists



:roflmao:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top