Hoax or Truth? Global Warming 'Scam' Debate Rages

Aug 12, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: International Business Times

A couple of days back reports of Al Gore 's use of curse words against skeptics, during a heated rant, was doing the rounds on the Internet.

Comments
1 - 20 of 574 Comments Last updated Apr 25, 2012
First Prev
of 29
Next Last

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Aug 12, 2011
 

Judged:

4

4

3

The whole shebang summed up concisely:
-
Numerous decisive factors, including clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and different time lags make it impossible to accurately identify which piece of Earth's changing climate is a feedback from man-made greenhouse gases.

"There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that," Spencer said. "The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations."

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Aug 12, 2011
 

Judged:

5

4

3

Countless studies validating and denying global warming have seen the light of the day providing fodder for more debates, some of which somewhat bitter.
Not true.

The scientific consensus has been that the world is warming and human beings are responsible for a couple of decades.

There have been countless studies supporting that consensus in the peer reviewed scientific literature, yes, but only and handful that go against it, and they have been shown to be in error.

The reason every national scientific academy on the planet says warming's real and we're responsible.

The countless studies denying global warming don't appear in the peer reviewed scientific literature, it comes from political think tanks and blogs and crank web sites.

Gore was right to call bullshit.
And so what do they do? They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message:“This climate thing, it’s nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn’t trap heat. It may be volcanoes.” Bullshit!“It may be sun spots.” Bullshit!“It’s not getting warmer.” Bullshit!

There are about ten other memes out there. When you go and talk to any audience about climate, you hear them washing back at you the same crap over and over and over again. They have polluted this — There’s no longer a shared reality on an issue like climate even though the very existence of our civilization is threatened. People have no idea! And yet our ability to actually come to a shared reality that emphasizes that this matters — It’s no longer acceptable in mixed company, meaning bipartisan company, to use the goddamn word “climate.” They have polluted it to the point where we cannot possibly come to an agreement on it.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/08/well-it-re...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Aug 12, 2011
 

Judged:

3

3

3

FuGyou wrote:
the world is warming and human beings are responsible for a couple of decades.
Priceless.
Gord

Calgary, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Aug 12, 2011
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true.
The scientific consensus has been that the world is warming and human beings are responsible for a couple of decades.
There have been countless studies supporting that consensus in the peer reviewed scientific literature, yes, but only and handful that go against it, and they have been shown to be in error.
The reason every national scientific academy on the planet says warming's real and we're responsible.
The countless studies denying global warming don't appear in the peer reviewed scientific literature, it comes from political think tanks and blogs and crank web sites.
Gore was right to call bullshit.
<quoted text>
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/08/well-it-re...
Here is the ACTUAL "scientific consensus".

Why don't YOU TELL US WHY, after Billions of Dollars has been "flushed down the AGW TOILET", 100% of the QUACK climate scientists (that have produced Thousands of so called "peer reviewed papers") and 100% of the world's scientific academies have NEVER been able to produce:

- Even ONE Law of Science that supports the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect
- Even ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a Colder Atmosphere can HEAT UP a Warmer Earth

The Laws of Science and Measurement support for the AGW LIE and Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" simply DO NOT EXIST.
---------
Watch FairGame-ody HI-TAIL his fat ass to hide in the HILLS....AGAIN.

The AGW Cult ALWAYS RUNS FOR THE HILLS when confronted with the TRUTH.
Taxpayer

Wheaton, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Aug 12, 2011
 

Judged:

4

3

2

At this point, we can not afford to waste any more money. We need cheaper energy. If the cheaper energy is also "green" that is fine, as long as it is CHEAPER, and not paid for with government money.

“If it ain't broke don't fix it”

Since: Jul 09

Arcadia, LA.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Aug 12, 2011
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Almost half-way through another hurricane season, and not one hurricane to hit the U.S. yet. It's about time for NOAA's "scientists" to yet again change their predictions and try to save face.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Aug 12, 2011
 

Judged:

4

4

3

In the 1980's the scientific consensus was that adding CO2 into the atmosphere would cause global warming over and above natural variability in the climate.

In the 1990's the consensus was that that warming was visible in the temperature record.

That's still the consensus today.

Our understanding of the causes of climate change are good enough to model the changes of the last 160 years. Natural causes alone don't explain the changes. Natural cause and CO2 explain them very well.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/IPCC_m...

So why are we still hearing that we don't understand the climate well enough to say that anthropogenic CO2 caused the warming?

Partly because you have people like Earthling paid to squat on forums and post the same old lies over and over again.

Partly because you have scientists like Roy Spencer who continue to try to fit the evidence to what they would like to believe- that we're not causing significant and dangerous warming- because of strong ideological and religious beliefs that it's just not possible.

And of course because the fossil fuel industry is financing the denial industry for their own short term profit and to the long term disadvantage of our grandchildren.
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Aug 12, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

1

FairGame wrote:
the world is warming and human beings are responsible for a couple of decades.
//////////
'piddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling' wrote:
Priceless.
//////////
litesong wrote:
However,'piddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling' is priced less, because he has no upper level mathematics or science, has made the 2nd greatest topix AGW denier error of 500 million TIMES, & is a slimy filthy vile pukey proud racist pig.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Aug 12, 2011
 

Judged:

3

2

2

FuGyou wrote:
So why are we still hearing that we don't understand the climate well enough to say that anthropogenic CO2 caused the warming?
Because, "we" don't, which includes all climatologists and the armchair psuedo scientist internet idiots like you, Bozo, LessFact, Norfie and dare I say litesout et al.
You've claimed to be either a biologist, chemist, engineer, doctor, vet, food scientist, computer scientist or mathematician, but none of those specialist areas of expertise allows you to pretend you're an expert in climatology, not even in such a lowly forum as this, where only psuedo scientists would bother to post regularly.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Aug 12, 2011
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Taxpayer wrote:
At this point, we can not afford to waste any more money. We need cheaper energy. If the cheaper energy is also "green" that is fine, as long as it is CHEAPER, and not paid for with government money.
"CHEAPER" energy is highly unlikely, we live in a world where prices can only rise in the long term.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Aug 12, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

dragoon70056 wrote:
Almost half-way through another hurricane season, and not one hurricane to hit the U.S. yet. It's about time for NOAA's "scientists" to yet again change their predictions and try to save face.
Alarmists don't specifically need hurricanes or tornadoes, they'll grab hold of any extreme weather event that comes along and blame it on GW or CC.
Every year they'll pick out broken records of heat, drought, melting ice, an extinct species, a threatened species, tsunami, earthquake, wildfire, you name it, they have pleny of ammunition, no matter how far fetched, it'll impress some of the gullible.
But one thing's for sure, the next time a hurricane makes landfall, they'll be there to say I told you so.
It's commonly known as grasping at straws.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Aug 12, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Because, "we" don't, which includes all climatologists and the armchair psuedo scientist internet idiots like you, Bozo, LessFact, Norfie and dare I say litesout et al.
You've claimed to be either a biologist, chemist, engineer, doctor, vet, food scientist, computer scientist or mathematician, but none of those specialist areas of expertise allows you to pretend you're an expert in climatology, not even in such a lowly forum as this, where only psuedo scientists would bother to post regularly.
33 world national science academies say we do.
68 national and international science organisations say we do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Aug 12, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

How Far Will You Go Only with the Support of Extrapolation?

Global warming doomsters predict future changes by extrapolating from observed data and by including factors which are unreliable in predicting trends.

In a research paper titled “The Science Isn’t Settled: The Limitations of Global Climate Models” Dr. Tim Ball of The George Marshall Institute, Washington, D.C. argues that climate changes significantly all the time and current changes are well within natural variability. He says that even though Carbon dioxide is not the cause of global warming or climate change, it is the key element forced in model simulations. The paper disregards the climate models, as they are based on the laws of physics but are unable to forecast with any acceptable of accuracy beyond 10 days and are unable to recreate past known conditions (Known as hindsight forecasting).
http://cagw.mythicalunderworld.com/2011/08/12...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Aug 12, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Do We Have to Live Under Threat Predicted by a Computer Model?

Well, that is something each one has to decide. Now that the phenomenon is more of a concept, one has to decide between being a Global Warming ‘believer’ or ‘atheist.’ However, everyone can be sure of seeing more studies supporting, denying or maintaining equal stance about Climate Change, in future.

Same link as above.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Aug 12, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Earthling-1 wrote:
How Far Will You Go Only with the Support of Extrapolation?
Global warming doomsters predict future changes by extrapolating from observed data and by including factors which are unreliable in predicting trends.
In a research paper titled “The Science Isn’t Settled: The Limitations of Global Climate Models” Dr. Tim Ball of The George Marshall Institute, Washington, D.C. argues that climate changes significantly all the time and current changes are well within natural variability. He says that even though Carbon dioxide is not the cause of global warming or climate change, it is the key element forced in model simulations. The paper disregards the climate models, as they are based on the laws of physics but are unable to forecast with any acceptable of accuracy beyond 10 days and are unable to recreate past known conditions (Known as hindsight forecasting).
http://cagw.mythicalunderworld.com/2011/08/12...
Fair Game wrote:
The countless studies denying global warming don't appear in the peer reviewed scientific literature, it comes from political think tanks and blogs and crank web sites.
Not a research paper, not peer reviewed science- it comes from a political think tank, from somebody who lies about being a climatologist- he's not- and has strong links to the fossil fuel industry.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Aug 12, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

FuGyou wrote:
33 world national science academies say we do.
68 national and international science organisations say we do.
"You must trust me, I'm a scientist."
Getflushed

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Aug 12, 2011
 

Judged:

1

Fearmongers and those profiting from fear have yet to explain why Mars is warming. Maybe it's the robotic rovers sent by humans.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Aug 12, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

FuGyou wrote:
Not a research paper, not peer reviewed science- it comes from a political think tank, from somebody who lies about being a climatologist- he's not- and has strong links to the fossil fuel industry.
Dr. Timothy Ball

Dr. Tim Ball, one of the first Canadians to hold a Ph.D. in climatology, wrote his doctoral thesis at the University of London (England) using the remarkable records of the Hudson Bay Company to reconstruct climate change from 1714 to 1952. He has published numerous articles on climate change and its impact on the human condition. Dr Ball has served on numerous committees at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels on climate, water resources, and environmental issues. He was a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Aug 12, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Dr. Timothy Ball
Dr. Tim Ball, one of the first Canadians to hold a Ph.D. in climatology, wrote his doctoral thesis at the University of London (England) using the remarkable records of the Hudson Bay Company to reconstruct climate change from 1714 to 1952. He has published numerous articles on climate change and its impact on the human condition. Dr Ball has served on numerous committees at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels on climate, water resources, and environmental issues. He was a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years.
Dr Ball likes to exaggerate the relevance of his career and publications.

He was professor of geography. The University of Winnipeg never had a climatology department.

His Phd was on weather analysis.

He published four pieces of original research in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change... well, weather data analysis again.

Ball has not published any new research in the last 11 years.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Aug 12, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
33 world national science academies say we do.
68 national and international science organisations say we do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
The burocrats of 33 world national science academies and 68 national and internationa sicence organizations and nearly all of them have a rather large percentage of thier membership who disagree with it. So you continue to belive in the administrator who hasn't practiced science in years and I stick with the researchers who are conducting active research even as we speak.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 29
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

23 Users are viewing the Science / Technology Forum right now

Search the Science / Technology Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 2 hr Dogen 171,517
Directly Recover SMS (Text Messages) from iPhon... (Jan '13) 7 hr davewest9876 10
how to create websites / photo video creation a... 18 hr dadman 2
Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) 19 hr SpaceBlues 26,948
How can I recover deleted photos & videos from ... (Jul '12) Mon SwedolkJuonh 11
[vCard Contacts to iPhone] Import vCard (.vcf) ... (Mar '13) Mon Davidoa1 3
Copy SMS Text Messages From iPhone 4S/4 to Mac ... (May '13) Mon Davidoa1 7
•••
•••