Al Gore Lies About Gloabl Warming Scandal

[Mr. Shaman]

In college I studied oceanography and we spent a lot of time on ocean currents and how they affect and are affected by the atmosphere. It's a complex dance and not easily explained in short posts.

BZZZZZZZT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you'd ever considered a future, in politics, you've just lost ALL "conservative" SUPPORT!!!!!​

 

[asur]

Mare - Farting is something Liberals worry about:

the EPA has proposed regulation imposing a
cow fart tax of $175 a year on every head of dairy cattle
in the United States and $80 for beef cattle, $20 per head of hogs.


http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090602135111.aspx

As a side note, you have to logically expect that tax will harm the
farming industry.

Mare -

You didn't say whether the oceans were continuing to warm during the last 10 years,
perhaps that's where the extra heat is going.

No, that's not true! You are now repeating illogical hogwash without supporting proof.
The Oceans aren't the answer!

The overall sea temperature trend from 2002 still is toward cooler temperatures. 2009, it bears mentioning, is an El Nino year, which means that the one-year temperature increase is probably temporary.

To be continued:

 

[MrSheepish]

Continuing:

If hots spots are right above the US and if the greenhouse
theory is considered, wouldn't we expect a higher warming affect over the US
versus the poles over the course of the last several years. Ie. It's
only logical that the US should be experiencing the greenhouse effect to
a far greater degree! Do you agree?

There is a simple reason why you should expect greater warming near the poles than over the central parts of the world. Near the poles you have more ice/snow, which reflects much of the sun's heat back into space. A little bit of warming results in some of that ice melting, which allows more heat in because there is now less reflection. Thus, the poles should be expected to warm more quickly. Things are especially dramatic near the north pole. See the ice maps here: http://mb-soft.com/public3/globalze.html

In exhibit 3 the NASA temperature graph shows temperatures haven't risen in the past 10 years globally either, and the trend is currently downward.

So it's not just the US that is seeing lower temperatures, it's happening all over the globe!

Now if you accept that the CO2 levels have risen in the past 10 years, which sounds logical, then why isn't the temperature rising?

The temperature is rising, but there is a large random fluctuation in what the temperature will be each year, and solar cycles make it harder to draw conclusions from short time intervals. You need to look at large time intervals to see it. Have a look at the temperatures over the last 130 years:

If you really don't trust anything but the most precise measurements of temperature, you can also look at satellite measurements that have been performed since the space age began. You can see the warming there as well.

Edit: don't know why these images aren't showing up. You can see them here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

 

[asur]

Mr Sheep wrote -

You need to look at large time intervals to see it. Have a look at the temperatures over the last 130 years

Well why limit this to 130 years, why not thousands of years, that should
be more telling, yes?

Do you notice the fluctuations in the long term graph
and how it appears we are now peaking?

Do you hear any mention of the ice ages in the discourse on global warming? There is none beyond occasional ridicule. To avoid any mention of ice ages shows that a hoax is being perpetrated on the public.


Regardless, 10 years of recent cooling is a trend, not a fluke.

Question: Why is the recent 10 years of global cooling significant?
Answer: Because you can't hide heat, that would violate the laws
of physics and energy.

Do you understand this?

Have you ever studied the CO2 levels and graphs Mr Sheep?

As a side note, I want to avoid Wikipedia on my thread.
It's not to be trusted, I'm trying to present valid data here!!

We need respectable sources for data! I saw firsthand how they
deleted the Robert Creamer data the other day after news broke about
him attending the Whitehouse.

 

[top gun]

There is a simple reason why you should expect greater warming near the poles than over the central parts of the world. Near the poles you have more ice/snow, which reflects much of the sun's heat back into space. A little bit of warming results in some of that ice melting, which allows more heat in because there is now less reflection. Thus, the poles should be expected to warm more quickly. Things are especially dramatic near the north pole. See the ice maps here: http://mb-soft.com/public3/globalze.html



The temperature is rising, but there is a large random fluctuation in what the temperature will be each year, and solar cycles make it harder to draw conclusions from short time intervals. You need to look at large time intervals to see it. Have a look at the temperatures over the last 130 years:

If you really don't trust anything but the most precise measurements of temperature, you can also look at satellite measurements that have been performed since the space age began. You can see the warming there as well.

Edit: don't know why these images aren't showing up. You can see them here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

I appreciate your efforts my friend I really do. But you have to understand that this isn't about climate change or pollution or anything even remotely like that to Conservatives.

To them this is all about money in their pocket verses clean up cost. All things environmental clean up wise cost money and are on such a large scale only governments can really address them.

So when you don't want to pay for, stop making or clean up your mess what do you do? You say it's not really that bad, you agrue that it will clean up on it's own and you drag out attempts to fix it by arguing the findings.

If asur could have his taxes dropped by 10 bucks a year he'd be for dumping raw sewage into ever river except the one by his house... hell maybe even that one too. He'd argue that it's all organic, that's how the cowboys did it and nature will take care of it.

It's insane I know.

 

[asur]

For independents viewing the global warming facts in this discussion -

We aren't done yet, but if you are concerned now as many are:

You can voice your displeasure by going here:

http://www.speakoutforamerica.com/Act-Now?gclid=CLyRmLv7054CFQk75QodDA0Epw

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

BZZZZZZZT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you'd ever considered a future, in politics, you've just lost ALL "conservative" SUPPORT!!!!!​

I wouldn't get into politics for anything in the world, it's become a forum for public masturbation.

 

[MrSheepish]

Mr Sheep wrote -

Well why limit this to 130 years, why not thousands of years, that should
be more telling, yes?

Temperatures have changed dramatically in the distant past. So what? They have been roughly constant through out all of human civilization. Sudden, constant dramatic temperature changes are bad. We don't want to cause one.

Do you hear any mention of the ice ages in the discourse on global warming? There is none beyond occasional ridicule. To avoid any mention of ice ages shows that a hoax is being perpetrated on the public.

No, experts don't discuss them much because they are beside the point.

Regardless, 10 years of recent cooling is a trend, not a fluke.

What cooling? Did you look at your own data or at mine? The last ten years have had roughly constant temperatures. The last thirty years have seen a fairly significant rise in temperatures. The last hundred years have seen a dramatic rise.

Have you ever studied the CO2 levels and graphs Mr Sheep?

Show me your favorite data and let's rumble.

As a side note, I want to avoid Wikipedia on my thread.
It's not to be trusted, I'm trying to present valid data here!!

Did you look at my links? None of the data is from Wikipedia. The first shows a graph from the NASA Goddard institute. The second is from a variety of satellite and ground-based studies. Click the links for the references.

 

[MrSheepish]

I appreciate your efforts my friend I really do. But you have to understand that this isn't about climate change or pollution or anything even remotely like that to Conservatives.

I don't know whether anything I say will convince conservatives or liberals of anything. That depends how open-minded they are. I try to present what I think I understand as clearly and forcefully as I can and make them respond to it. Things they say may make me realize I am wrong, however, so I like to pick an issue and dig into it.

I would still like to hear a liberal who is against greenhouse gas emissions justify the Democratic opposition to nuclear power.

 

[asur]

Al Gore Did Lie About Global Warming

Exhibit 5:

Well the graph below is typical although it's for Mauna Lao and
the data may have been tampered with by Climate scientists.

Notice the constant increase in the CO2 level over the past years. It's
so consistent it's fishy. Most of the CO2 graphs look similar
although most don't include the last 10 years, the most important years.

Question: Why is that?
Answer: Because it invalidates the Greenhouse Global Warming Theory!

When we look at temperature in the last ten years it has decreased and appears to trending downward, but it should have continued increasing? Or did the global greenhouse go out of order for the past ten years?

http://i47.tinypic.com/2rrmdlj.jpg

This fact keeps the climate hoaxers up at night, trying to come up with silly
excuses.

If you study these global temperature graphs you see a typical sine wave pattern
so we are probably heading downward in temperature for a couple more years now
if we extrapolate the data!


Mr. Sheep - You links have Wikipedia in the URLs and we can't rely on them although I looked.
One did not specify a source and it actually shows temperature decreasing after 2000!
Note below how temperature decreased from 1998 to 2008

The other shows satellite temperature mixed in which is fishy.

Just find a better source for surface temperature and we will discuss.
All you stated above are generalizations/words without data or logic behind it.


Have you ever seen that Al Gore Movie that is full of convenient lies?

 

[asur]

Mr Sheep wrote -

I would still like to hear a liberal who is against greenhouse gas emissions justify the Democratic opposition to nuclear power.

You are on to something, the Democrats oppose Nuclear Power in general

Yet many other countries are pursuing it and starting to leave the US behind
in nuclear jobs and technology!

 

[PLC1]

Global warming is just a hoax, you know, and the end goal is a world socialist government.

You can get the real story on this unbiased scientific site.

In response to the conventional explanation of global warming, several calls have been made by various individuals to create a system of world government, and put into place rigid controls over the lives of millions across the world.

If that scares you, then you might want to subscribe to one of these theories as well.l

Maybe all of them.

 

[samsara15]

The ones who lie are the ones who attempt to deny the reality of the climate disaster we will soon enough endure. Yes, there are no easy ways to prevent it, but that does not change the fact that hiding our heads in the sand is no way to face a problem. However, that way of denying problems exist is nothing new to the Conservative mindset.

 

[samsara15]

BTW, I support the use of nuclear power. It has a few serious problems, but it is better than any other source we now have available.

 

[asur]

Samara wrote -

Yes, there are no easy ways to prevent it

Maybe you pray to God as he controls it, not man!

Just to reiterate the facts so far:
1) The Global Warming Hoax is man-made!
2) There is no scientific proof that man has anything to do
with global temperature!


Have you studied temperature on other planets, beside earth?