Is Gobal Cooling a Continuing Threat?

[SilverSurfer_OG]

Gday again

Yes sorry H3ad my c02 comment should have read we have levels at current 390+ parts per million (ppm), even if we say it is now 400 ppm, do the math: 400 / 1,000,000 = 0.04 percent. Less than 1/2 of 1 percent of all gases in the atmosphere.

Now Al Gore. He is the figure head and champion of AGW weather you like it or not. He HAS trained the carbon institutes here in Australia (and worldwide) as it proudly states on their home pages. He is a known liar and shill for globalist projects like NAFTA and GAT. Both of which have outsourced jobs and helped ruin the US economy. Has also had damaging effect on REAL environmental issues. Can you see a pattern emerging?

http://www.debatethis.org/gore/enviro/

The Cancun UN meeting just finished. They had record low temps for 6 straight days... You just cant make this stuff up. I see a pattern here also. Like some higher power is fucking with their minds... how ironic

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/...t-ever-december-record-temperature-in-cancun/

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Gday again

Yes sorry H3ad my c02 comment should have read we have levels at current 390+ parts per million (ppm), even if we say it is now 400 ppm, do the math: 400 / 1,000,000 = 0.04 percent. Less than 1/2 of 1 percent of all gases in the atmosphere.

Yup... but we know that in spite of the concentration that without said CO2 the earth would be about 30 degrees cooler. Greenhouse gasses make up a tiny portion of the atmosphere, but keep the planet 50 degrees or so warmer than it would otherwise be.

basic physics. elementary.
and common sense... small amounts of things can have big effects.

and you omit pertinent numbers... The total concentration is irrelevant.
The effect that concentration has, and how much we're increasing the concentration matter.

How much there is in comparison to the total atmospheric volume is irrelevant, if there is enough to cause a measurable effect, which there is.

Now... increase that concentration by more than 25% like we have.

It's fairly easy to understand.

For the entire history of civilization, CO2 levels were below 300ppm.
We have now increased that more than 25% to around 400ppm.

Now Al Gore. He is the figure head and champion of AGW weather you like it or not. He HAS trained the carbon institutes here in Australia (and worldwide) as it proudly states on their home pages. He is a known liar and shill for globalist projects like NAFTA and GAT. Both of which have outsourced jobs and helped ruin the US economy. Has also had damaging effect on REAL environmental issues. Can you see a pattern emerging?

Sorry... you're wrong. AGW was valid science before Al gore was born, and nothing that has anything to do with AGW science depends on Al Gores existence any at all.

You cannot disprove the science by discrediting someone who decides to publicize it.
Don't be silly.

http://www.debatethis.org/gore/enviro/

The Cancun UN meeting just finished. They had record low temps for 6 straight days... You just cant make this stuff up. I see a pattern here also. Like some higher power is fucking with their minds... how ironic

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/...t-ever-december-record-temperature-in-cancun/

lmao at STILL confusing weather and climate.

and lamo at staunch defenders of ignorance.

and LMAO at people who think what pundits and reporters imagine is as valid as what scientists have observed.

 

[sac beh]

Now Al Gore. He is the figure head and champion of AGW weather you like it or not. He HAS trained the carbon institutes here in Australia (and worldwide) as it proudly states on their home pages. He is a known liar and shill for globalist projects like NAFTA and GAT. Both of which have outsourced jobs and helped ruin the US economy. Has also had damaging effect on REAL environmental issues. Can you see a pattern emerging?

Why do people keep bringing up this politician in a deceptive attempt to discredit a scientific argument?

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "The science points to AGW"
Dave: "But Al Gore is a liar and supports other projects that damage the environment"
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position? My arguments are based on the science not Al Gore"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, Al Gore is a liar and shouldn't be believed."

Ad hominem tu quoque refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way. This argument is fallacious because it does not disprove the argument; if the premise is true then Source A may be a hypocrite, but this does not make the statement less credible from a logical perspective. Indeed, Source A may be in a position to provide personal testimony to support the argument.

For example, a father may tell his son not to start smoking as he will regret it when he is older, and the son may point out that his father is or was a smoker. This does not alter the fact that his son may regret smoking when he is older, and the fact his father was a smoker means he can talk from a position of experience.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Why do people keep bringing up this politician in a deceptive attempt to discredit a scientific argument?

see also: grasping at straws

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

Nice try boys but we all know he is intimately tied into this scam/project. He is the figure head just like Julian Assange.

He still goes around charging lots of money to hear his climate change bull. He also still refuses to debate Lord Monkton or anyone else... so does James Cameron. More patterns...

I was bringing attention to the patterns inherent in said person and the projects they give their backing too. Studying patterns forms the basis of science.

You can say all you want about weather vs climate but it was still highly ironic and there is also a pattern of climate debates going on whilst record cold temps or unseasonal snowfall are outside the conference/parliament. Its now called the 'Gore effect'. Tickles my fancy is all

 

[Blueshark]

It may come as a surprise to some, but I have to side with GH on something.... As I had stated before in one of my posts, there are those who will try to take advantage, either politically or monetarily, of the so-called 'global warming' debate. Regardless of which side you are on, I think we can agree that Al Gore (and others) have taken that advantage to try and further their own agenda. This helps neither side and provides more skepticism to the debate. Science and reasoning should win the day in any discussion, not fake hyperbole.
Further, I am dismayed by the falling to the lowest level of human emotion by using name-calling when all else fails. At least act like we are civil?
GH, I applaud your patience through this debate with civility and even though we disagree on some things, you have earned my respect.... Peace

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Nice try boys but we all know he is intimately tied into this scam/project. He is the figure head just like Julian Assange.

He still goes around charging lots of money to hear his climate change bull. He also still refuses to debate Lord Monkton or anyone else... so does James Cameron. More patterns...

I was bringing attention to the patterns inherent in said person and the projects they give their backing too. Studying patterns forms the basis of science.

You can say all you want about weather vs climate but it was still highly ironic and there is also a pattern of climate debates going on whilst record cold temps or unseasonal snowfall are outside the conference/parliament. Its now called the 'Gore effect'. Tickles my fancy is all

And regardless Gore is still irrelevant. No climate scientist anywhere bases his opinion on al gore.
And The science is still 60 older than he, making you look silly trying to act as if it is remotely dependent on his image.

He is one semi famous person who realized that the scientific evidences were being widely ignored, and decided to publicize what he understood to be true. Big fat hairy deal... He's a famous person who took up a cause... You cannot draw any valid conclusions about global warming based on anything that has anything to do with Al Gore (or rush limbaugh, or glen beck, or any other person). I dunno why this fact continues to escape you.

I bet you think the athlete on the front of the box actually made the wheaties inside...

Unseasonal snowfall is exactly what global warming scientists predicted would result from the increased atmospheric energy. It might be funny, if it didn't actually underscore the issue... but one has to have a decent background knowledge of climate science to realize that, so I don't blame you for imagining the opposite.



BLUESHARK, thank you and likewise.

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

Can you grasp the fact that he is training people in my country to deal with climate change?

That makes him relevent to my point of view.

Sure it doesnt prove it either way other than prove the intent to further globalism.

When you getting your carbon ration card?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

You talk like a propagandist, and ignore relevant items to focus on trivialities.

And in MY country smart people have never really been swayed by fuck all Al Gore said.

Do you imagine that the athlete hawking Nikes invented nikes?
Do you imagine discrediting the athlete would affect the shoe's performance?

Go fly your red herring bullshit somewhere where people are gullible.

 

[In~Plain~Site]

There's patience and civility for ya'!!!

At least this time he's come out and said what he's wanted to say all along 'Don't agree with me, FUCK YOU'

Take a walk and get some fresh air.The name 'head' was a great choice for you

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it, IPS?

Please quote the portion of what I said that means "Don't agree with me, FUCK YOU", I'm interested in your spin...

Do you ever really have anything to say?
(rhetorical question, I know you've always got an 'irrelevant personal attack based on distortion' in ya, but nothing much else)

 

[grapeman]

Ask the Polar bears if there is a cooling trend.

Why? We can just count them. Have you looked into that or are you stupid?

There's like a 5 fold increase in polar bears in the last 40 years.

Anything else you want to comment on or are you too busy with your nose up al gores ass while his bullshit movie is playing?

Phfft. These children will believe anything if it is in video.

 

[grapeman]

It is blatant which members here only see politics.
Having such a narrow focus prevents them from ever seeing the big picture, and allows them to justify their hater nature.

You criticize others while you present no science. Because there is no science that backs up what you so desperately want to believe, that my 4400 sq ft home with 15 tons of a/c are effecting your weather.

Yet you believe the crap you post is science. Sad really. Because it is not. The science is still being conducted.

Your irrationality is pretty much the state of the nation. At least on the major networks.

What about Hal Lewis and the tree ring bullshit. You seem to have an answer for everything but no factual rebuttals.

Wait... haven't I seen you on msnbc in the mornings?

 

[HempKat]

as another NYer, i can second the changes in weather i see locally
in particular the freezing of the lakes around here, they freeze later, and there are years where they don't freeze completely
that didn't happen 30/40 years ago, but it does now
lake freezing is one of the favored metrics of climatologists as they are more indicative of mean seasonal temperatures, not so much affected by short term cold/warm spells

To chime in and since I'm on the east coast near the capital, I too have seen the same kinds of changes over the past 30-40 years. When I was a kid you could count on being able to ice skate on most lakes or ponds and places like the C&O canal for much of the winter. Nowadays that only happens on those occasional really extreme winters with much lower then normal temps. Rather then temps as high as in the 50's in December and January which has become the new normal of recent years.

 

[HempKat]

Nice try boys but we all know he is intimately tied into this scam/project. He is the figure head just like Julian Assange.

He still goes around charging lots of money to hear his climate change bull. He also still refuses to debate Lord Monkton or anyone else... so does James Cameron. More patterns...

I was bringing attention to the patterns inherent in said person and the projects they give their backing too. Studying patterns forms the basis of science.

You can say all you want about weather vs climate but it was still highly ironic and there is also a pattern of climate debates going on whilst record cold temps or unseasonal snowfall are outside the conference/parliament. Its now called the 'Gore effect'. Tickles my fancy is all

Actually it's not ironic at all, it really underscores the importance when you're seeing temperate northern climate weather in a southern tropical zone. It really helps to point out just how out of skew the weather can get with climate change and how far reaching the effects can be.

 

[HempKat]

Why? We can just count them. Have you looked into that or are you stupid?

There's like a 5 fold increase in polar bears in the last 40 years.

Anything else you want to comment on or are you too busy with your nose up al gores ass while his bullshit movie is playing?

Phfft. These children will believe anything if it is in video.

Yeah but only because about 50 years ago the International community started trying to protect Polar Bears. It's kind of helpful for population growth when you make it illegal to overhunt an animal.

International involvement in polar bear conservation dates back to 1965 when scientists from Canada, Norway, Denmark, USSR, and the United States met in Fairbanks to discuss polar bear conservation due to widespread concern that populations were being over harvested. Until this time there had been very little management of polar bears in the Arctic and no coordinated effort among arctic countries. Harvest rates were rising rapidly in most areas except Russia which had enacted a ban on hunting in 1956. The Fairbanks meeting resulted in the formation of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) whose mission was to coordinate polar bear research and management programs on an international basis and to exchange information on each country's programs.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_schliebe.html

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

You criticize others while you present no science. Because there is no science that backs up what you so desperately want to believe, that my 4400 sq ft home with 15 tons of a/c are effecting your weather.

Yet you believe the crap you post is science. Sad really. Because it is not. The science is still being conducted.

Your irrationality is pretty much the state of the nation. At least on the major networks.

What about Hal Lewis and the tree ring bullshit. You seem to have an answer for everything but no factual rebuttals.

Wait... haven't I seen you on msnbc in the mornings?

Liar liar pants on fire.

I have to use my critical thinking skills in life, If you imagine that thinking critically criticizes you, then the issue is yours not mine. When you post up drivel, expect it to be criticized. It should be. It should be out job to criticize all information we are presented with... That's how you sort of the shite, and come to valid conclusions.

criticize |ˈkritəˌsīz|
verb [ trans. ]
to form and express a sophisticated judgment of

I have no beliefs at all about any single person's activities doing anything to the weather.

Mankind is verifiably warming the planet with our collective activity, though.

ALL of the science backs up what I've said.

I wish it weren't so! You implying that I want AGW is idiotic.
Just because One admits that something exists does not mean they like it. Don't be so simplistic.
I used to be a skeptic, but becoming educated makes it impossible to to keep my head in the sand. Why the hell would I wish it were true? LMAO... that's gotta be one of the most stupid hater accusations any asshat has ever made against me.

The crap I post is verifiably irrefutable scientific evidence.
You only repudiate my posts and you never refute them.
Rants like you posted above make your lack of critical thinking plainly evident.

I answered your irrelevant tree ring bullshit... That you ignored the answers like you ignore all the other pertinent facts is on you, not on me... But regardless... AGW science DOES NOT hinge on tree ring proxy evidence. You can throw all of the tree ring proxies in the trash, and there is STILL an overwhelming preponderance of evidence for AGW.

Wake the fuck up and get your head out of the dark smelly place of comfortable ignorance where you obviously have it firmly shoved.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Yeah but only because about 50 years ago the International community started trying to protect Polar Bears. It's kind of helpful for population growth when you make it illegal to overhunt an animal.



http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_schliebe.html

You'd think stuff like that would be obvious... guess grapeman is no sherlock holmes.

 

[ibjamming]

I live in the NE US, and things have changed drastically in terms of weather and temps over the last thirty years.

Thirty years ago snow would stay around the first week in Novenber. Over the past ten years snow didn't stay until 2 weeks before Christmas.

We also never saw grass through the snow until early April. This year the tree's were budding in mid March.

Year after year the snow comes later and leaves earlier. Thirty years ago farmers all planted their corn the last week in May to the first week in June. Now everyone's done planting by mid May, with most done earlier than that.

Now I don't know if it's global warming or a shift in the Earth, but things have changed drastically over the last few decades......

Gday again

Yes sorry H3ad my c02 comment should have read we have levels at current 390+ parts per million (ppm), even if we say it is now 400 ppm, do the math: 400 / 1,000,000 = 0.04 percent. Less than 1/2 of 1 percent of all gases in the atmosphere.

Now Al Gore. He is the figure head and champion of AGW weather you like it or not. He HAS trained the carbon institutes here in Australia (and worldwide) as it proudly states on their home pages. He is a known liar and shill for globalist projects like NAFTA and GAT. Both of which have outsourced jobs and helped ruin the US economy. Has also had damaging effect on REAL environmental issues. Can you see a pattern emerging?

http://www.debatethis.org/gore/enviro/

The Cancun UN meeting just finished. They had record low temps for 6 straight days... You just cant make this stuff up. I see a pattern here also. Like some higher power is fucking with their minds... how ironic

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/...t-ever-december-record-temperature-in-cancun/

It may come as a surprise to some, but I have to side with GH on something.... As I had stated before in one of my posts, there are those who will try to take advantage, either politically or monetarily, of the so-called 'global warming' debate. Regardless of which side you are on, I think we can agree that Al Gore (and others) have taken that advantage to try and further their own agenda. This helps neither side and provides more skepticism to the debate. Science and reasoning should win the day in any discussion, not fake hyperbole.
Further, I am dismayed by the falling to the lowest level of human emotion by using name-calling when all else fails. At least act like we are civil?
GH, I applaud your patience through this debate with civility and even though we disagree on some things, you have earned my respect.... Peace

To chime in and since I'm on the east coast near the capital, I too have seen the same kinds of changes over the past 30-40 years. When I was a kid you could count on being able to ice skate on most lakes or ponds and places like the C&O canal for much of the winter. Nowadays that only happens on those occasional really extreme winters with much lower then normal temps. Rather then temps as high as in the 50's in December and January which has become the new normal of recent years.

Actually it's not ironic at all, it really underscores the importance when you're seeing temperate northern climate weather in a southern tropical zone. It really helps to point out just how out of skew the weather can get with climate change and how far reaching the effects can be.

I'll say it REALLY clear so you can ALL understand...

A year, 10 years, 50 years, a century...do NOT a climate make. Climate is a LONG term "weather average" that takes many centuries to establish. WE DON'T KNOW if this is "climate change" or just "noise".

Please...look at past world temperature charts...aside from the fact that it's "circumstantial evidence" at best...there is "noise" found within any long term warming or cooling trend, there are MANY years...even hundreds of years...where "something" moved the temperature a few degrees in one way or another.

Again...you people are MAKING a problem out of NATURAL cycles...and someone...many actually, are making a LOT of money off it. Just another manufactured bubble to spur monetary growth and make people rich. Man COULD be doing something...but again, 1 good sized volcano can negate it all with one big poof! We could be cooling with a localized multidecadal warming trend.

We just don't know how "permanent" this warming is. It IS warming...I do and have agreed on that...the question still remains ARE we to blame and is it already too late with a 100 year head start?

Oh...don't make science your religion sac and head...you're borderline worship here. "Our science" is just a snapshot in time. Next year it we'll know more...hopefully.

Remember...it's the money. Money pays for research...and research gives the money what it wants. Don't be naive! You are...really... Powerful rich white guys...most of them anyway...call ALL the shots that count. You get to fight over the crumbs. Remember and believe this and you will understand so much.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

asserting that science anything remotely resembling a religion to me is an asinine mischaracterization bordering on obvious outright lie.

I believe in the verifiable.

Religion has blind faith in the unverifiable.

complete opposites, silly.

Science is an ever increasingly complete jigsaw puzzle... not something that gets knocked down and rebuilt from scratch every few years. To imply that it is a snapshot in time, instead of an ever growing body of knowledge, demonstrated your lack of understanding.

Tell all the hater-troll lies about me you like...
Mischaracterize science all you like...
You're fooling no-one with your 'anti-h3ad anti-science' propaganda campaign.

Remember... Money can't change measurements which are readily verifiable by anyone who cares to double check and measure for themselves...

Remember... A CENTURY AGO when AGW science was first being discussed, THERE WAS NO MONEY TRAIL TO FOLLOW... THE SCIENCE PREDATES YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORY BY DECADES. Or are you trying to sell the nonsense that it is now a 100 year old Swedish conspiracy?


BTW... I've made the "weather ≠ climate" point ad nauseum already... you're not making anything clear to anyone, Your drivel usually only ever serves to obfuscate.