And you should agree with the rest since nothing has undermined the physics of how CO2 can affect atmospheric temperatures but it is your right to cherry pick the science just don't expect to be challenged on that.
I don't see why you continue to persist in citing this when the article says this: [rquoter]Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report. “It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.” The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has recently issued a new set of global temperature readings covering the past 30 years, with thermometer readings augmented by satellite data. Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.” [/rquoter] While yes the article points out that there were problems with the temperature data it also reports where those problems were factored in along with where other evidence is cited. The most that you can argue based on this is that some scientists claim that the Earth isn't warming based upon flaws in the collection process. Other scientists though disagree. This is nothing fundamentally new as there has never been a unanimous consensus on this theory.
I read the article, buddy. It doesn't say what you claim it does. For someone with such disdain for the political left, you sure are liberal with the truth.
Ah yes, there it is. When the intellectual tank runs dry, the name-calling begins. With that in mind, here is a very appropriate musical accompaniment for you to enjoy when discussing the global warming movement from now on: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tsTAUs_h_uY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tsTAUs_h_uY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Do you even read people's posts? He didn't call you a name, he called you out for ignoring content. You're on the fast track to having *nobody* take you seriously ever again.
People antagonistic to me and my point of view have been casting the name liar around lately without a second thought, or even a first thought for that matter. Upon first reading, that clearly came across as more of the same. But now that you draw attention to it, I have to admit I may have over-reacted. LScolaDominates, I apologize. But the music is still yours to use while discussing the global warming movement at no extra charge. That I do not apologize for.
Donald Trump: Climate campaigner Al Gore 'should be stripped of Nobel Peace Prize after record snow storms'By Sceptic: Straight-talking tycoon Donald Trump attacked Al Gore's policies on climate change Donald Trump has called for Al Gore to be stripped of the Nobel Peace prize he was awarded for campaigning on climate change. The billionaire tycoon said record-breaking snow storms proved that the former US Vice-President was wrong on global warming, and that policies aimed at tackling carbon emissions were harming America's economy. His comments follow a string of high-profile attacks on climate change advocates. Scientists have been forced to defend themselves after embarrassing admissions that some of their evidence was faulty. Gore has become one of the world's leading global warming activists since his documentary An Inconvenient Truth became a surprise hit in 2006. He was given the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. But Trump, who hosts the US version of The Apprentice, said the Nobel Committee should now strip him of the award following one of the worst ever winters in eastern America. He said in a speech: 'With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore.' Campaigner: Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 He added: 'Gore wants us to clean up our factories and plants in order to protect us from global warming, when China and other countries couldn't care less. 'It would make us totally non-competitive in the manufacturing world, and China, Japan and India are laughing at America's stupidity.' A crowd of 500 at the businessman's Trump National Golf Club in Westchester, New York, stood up and cheered the remarks, the New York Post reported. Washington DC and surrounding areas were buried under more than two feet of snow last week in blizzards that President Barack Obama dubbed 'Snowmageddon'. But organisers of the Winter Olympics 3,000 miles away in Vancouver, Canada, had to ship in extra snow to ensure the games could go ahead despite unseasonably warm weather. Many scientists have gone to great lengths to explain that the record snowfalls do not disprove man-made global warming, while some have even said climate change could have contributed to the storms. But they face a growing movement of climate change sceptics in Britain and the US. The scientific community has been forced onto the back foot following claims that climate data has been 'manipulated' to bolster the case for action on carbon emissions. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has resisted calls for his resignation after the body admitted a series of mistakes, including a false claim included in an influential report that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. The panel has been mired in controversy since the leaking of emails from the climate change unit at The University of East Anglia, which appeared to show that data used to bolster the IPCC's claims had been manipulated. Critics also claim the UEA's researchers acted to stop papers they did not like from being published in journals and refused to share their data with sceptics. This week the unit's former head Professor Phil Jones, performed a majot u-turn and admitted there had been no 'statistically significant' global warming in the last 15 years. And new research cast serious doubt on temperature records from around the world which have been used as evidence for global warming. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ped-Nobel-Peace-Prize-record-snow-storms.html
LOL - when your "appeal to authority" argument consists of Donald Trump weighing in on climatology...time to pack it in.
Amazing I will actually agree with you on Donald Trump weighing in on Climatlogy. Donald just likes to be the center of attention like Gore. But he is no less or no more qualified than Al Gore weighing in on climatology. So LOL at Donald and LOL at Gore. This is really just all a side show. I am curious on how the scientists who really believe there is Global Warming feel about Al Gore. They must hate him when he speaks on their behalf cause he always looks like a fool with his bold and extreme statements. THis is why he is the center of jokes all the time (John Steward, South Park, Jay Leno, etc). Anyways this does not dispute the fact that even the head scientists are now retracing their steps and back peddling on some of their claims. -------------- .............But they face a growing movement of climate change sceptics in Britain and the US. The scientific community has been forced onto the back foot following claims that climate data has been 'manipulated' to bolster the case for action on carbon emissions. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has resisted calls for his resignation after the body admitted a series of mistakes, including a false claim included in an influential report that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. The panel has been mired in controversy since the leaking of emails from the climate change unit at The University of East Anglia, which appeared to show that data used to bolster the IPCC's claims had been manipulated. Critics also claim the UEA's researchers acted to stop papers they did not like from being published in journals and refused to share their data with sceptics. This week the unit's former head Professor Phil Jones, performed a majot u-turn and admitted there had been no 'statistically significant' global warming in the last 15 years. And new research cast serious doubt on temperature records from around the world which have been used as evidence for global warming. ---------------
And when you reposted an article after I had already commented on it, you were implicitly insulting my intelligence. I appreciate the apology, but I think you should be more concerned about correcting the error you made in your characterization of the article in question.
Not that I am saying that he is the ultimate authority - but are you kidding? Gore has generally made climate science his life's work for the past 10 years or more and has very obviously studied the topic extensively - I'd say he's a bit more qualified than Trump who is now mostly famous for hosting a game show and has absolutely zero weight as a serious public figure. Especially true given the level of r****dation in Trump's argument "It's snowing therefore GW must be denied" - my god, how ****ing stupid do you have to be to believe that? I don't think anybody other than Jorge is that dumb.
I am not fan of Trump and I am mostly annoyed at his antics except when he attacked Rosie. But Al Gore is a certified nut case. He has zero credibility and it doesn't matter what he makes at his life's works. He is a politician and a very corrupt one. He spreads lies and misinformation. Only two things matter to Gore. That is fame and $$$. When he didn't get elected President he had to go on his fall back plan to remain in the spotlight so he took on the Global Warming Cause. Then he found out he could make him self quite a bit of money doing that. Al Gore doesn't even believe himself and the crap he spews. Right after saying Global Warming will cause San Francisco Bay and the state of Florida to by flooded underwater he goes and buys a multimillion condo right on the bay front where he claims will be under water.. Hmmmm..
It was you who was in error in characterizing what the article said. After reading your responses, I was attempting to give you the benefit of the doubt by presuming that you must not have read the article very closely, or perhaps you just skipped down to the part that affirmed what you wanted to hear. You stated in your previous post: That is not so. In fact, the article is largely about the biases in the data collection in the report. The title of the article is "World may not be warming, say scientists," while the second sentence of the articles says: It the biases in the data collection in the report that throw doubt on the conclusions that the IPCC has reached. So, it is not me, but you, that should be concerned about correcting the error that you made in your characterization of the article in question.
Actually, since losing the election he has made most of his money in investments and business decisions. He does not take profit from his movie and book. Oh yeah - he has been writing about warming and environment since he was a senator. Then he mostly ignored it for 8 years ass VP, then came back to it.
You do realize that the existence of a bias in the data does not preclude the IPCC report from accounting for that bias, right? That it is in fact a precondition of "accounting for" something that there is a "something" to be accounted for?
Okay I don't really want to get into a Al Gore debate but I really would like to understand how anyone can take this guy seriously anymore? It doesn't matter how many years you spend studying something if you are not just smart enough or in his case insane it's not going to do anything. There was so much criticism from the left on here and from people that Support Global Warming about how ridiculous it is to claim one snow storm is debunking Global Warming. These people agreed that you can not look at one weather event and determine if something is true or false. (I agree with this statement) SamFisher, even blasted Donald Trump for using the snow storm to debunk Global Warming. (I also agree with this by the way) Well GUESS WHAT??! Have you guys seen Al Gore's Science Fiction Movie? An Inconvenient Truth? I believe Gore claims in the movie that Hurricane Katrina was caused by Global Warming!! Not too far from Trumps snowstorm statement huh? There were also quite a lot of posts on here by AGW supporters that claim that no REAL scientists would ever claim that. Well there were climatologists who claimed that right after Katrina. In fact all the scientists on Gore's payroll claim the same and that is why it made in his movie. Which goes to my point exactly. It doesn't matter that AL Gore has spent more time researching the topic he makes just as ridiculous statements if not more as Mr Trump. Al Gore really has no credibility. Even the British High Court ruled that his movie is filled with errors. This is from a Govt that generally supports the Global Warming theory. I mean have you guys actually seen his movie? It's comical!!! It really is like watching a Sci Fi Armageddon movie like the Day After Tomorrow. Love the dramatic music, graphics, and tone. Makes for great entertainment but definitely not a documentary. In case you missed the court ruling here you go http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Bal...kes-in-Al-Gores-new-book-begin-with-the-cover The factual errors in the movie -------------- # 1. Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said: "This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore's "wake-up call". He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia"."The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven meters might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus." # 2. The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened. # 3. The documentary speaks of global warming "shutting down the Ocean Conveyor" - the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was "very unlikely" that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down. # 4. Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed "an exact fit". The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts". # 5. Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change. # 6. The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that "it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability." # 7. Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was "insufficient evidence to show that". # 8. Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice" The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - "but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description". # 9. Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult. -------------------
Concisely written and right on the money, here is an excellent synopsis of this whole topic by Debra Sanders at the San Francisco Gate. This really is a very well written article. [RQUOTER]The Winter of Global Warming By Debra Saunders The last few months have been cruel and wintry for global-warming true believers. The long storm began in November, when a leak of e-mails from Britain's University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit revealed that key global-warming scientists tried to stifle dissent and politicize peer review, which led to revelations that the researchers had dumped much of the raw data used to bolster the alarmist argument. Then came the news that that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report -- you know, the one that reported that manmade global warming was "unequivocal" -- wrongly predicted that it was likely Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, based not on peer-reviewed research, but on an article in a popular magazine. Oh, and it turns out that the IPCC was wrong in reporting that 55 percent of The Netherlands is below sea level. Last week, Phil Jones, the unit's director at the time of the e-mail leak, answered tough questions posed by the BBC in an interview, during which he admitted that there has been no statistically significant warming of the planet since 1995. Jones also rejected Al Gore's mantra when he said he did not believe that "the vast majority of climate scientists think" the debate over climate change is over. Like the Wicked Witch of Oz, the global-warming machine is melting into a wretched puddle. Tuesday, The New York Times jumped in to save the day. An editorial reminded readers that, despite "isolated errors and exaggerations," the IPCC report did win a Nobel Prize. Columnist Tom Friedman suggested that calling "global warming" by a different name, "global weirding," would change the debate. Friedman apparently believes that people who don't agree with him are so stupid that a new name will distract them from any ideas or facts on an issue. The alarmists also have taken to scolding skeptics who have pointed to this year's record snowfalls as dimwits who do not know the difference between weather and climate. This is choice -- after all the years during which the global-warming believers pointed to every warm season, low-snowfall report and storm as proof that the "tipping point" was near. They've done this to themselves. In announcing that all scientists supported the IPCC, they claimed a mantle of scientific infallibility. Their actions and attitudes did not reflect the sort of behavior you would expect from people who truly believe that the planet is in peril. The high-profile global-warming partisans focused on ridiculing nonbelievers, rather than persuading them. They hopped onto private planes to be seen at confabs, where nothing real got done. Biggies like Gore would refuse to debate -- even as they argued that Mother Earth's condition was near critical. The worst part is that these loudmouths have drowned out the voices of scientists -- including those who believe global warming is largely caused by man -- who have been ready to engage in the complexities of climate science. In their hubris, they decided that they, and only they, would save the planet. But their egos got in the way.[/RQUOTER]
This thread is dumb (really? We're back to discussing Al Gore's movie? Really? - lousy complaints btw, sunsfan.) But.... for the sake of info, here are a pair of articles that talk about how global warming can cause larger snowstorms. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123671588&ft=1&f=1007 http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/12/nation/la-na-climateqa12-2010feb12
I wasnt the one that brought up Al Gore. Just simply replying to someone else saying he is not credible due to all the reasons already listed. Also the article sources are from two very liberal media outlets. La times And NPR and the scientific facts in there are again not credible. Don't you guys find it funny that the Global Warming pundits blame everything on Global Warming? Oh its hot out!! its global warming.. oh its pouring rain out!! its global warming ohh a huge hurricane! its global warming.. Look a huge snow storm! it must be global warming.. this is getting a bit ridiculous.. Looks like we can't have any kind of weather pattern and not have it be caused by global warming..
