Al Gore: An Inconvienient Truth

[SLCPUNK]

Pretty weak.

With such a huge time span it is very difficult to pinpoint which one is going up first, much less anything "significant". You are talking about a span of 10,000 years within each line.

[The Chad Cometh]

But with every significant rise of that graph, the co2 rise is a good 100-400 years behind the corresponding rise in temperature. It's quite compelling ...

[SLCPUNK]

But with every significant rise of that graph, the co2 rise is a good 100-400 years behind the corresponding rise in temperature. It's quite compelling ...

Actually not it is not.

A quick search on the Vostok site (where your graph came from) in Antarctica says the same thing:


"The main significance of the new data lies in the high correlation between GTG concentrations and temperature variations over 420,000 years and through four glacial cycles.  However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously. "

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

The scientists who created this graph said that it is inconclusive. If you took the graph, then certainly you must have read the study next to it? So either you 1) Lied about the graphs findings to suit your argument, or 2) Didn't read it before posting.

[Guns N RockMusic]

Kudos to you SLC for actually reading the study before you denounced it. after you denounced it.? At least you took the time to look at it which is more than most people on here would do.

[SLCPUNK]

Kudos to you SLC for actually reading the study before you denounced it. after you denounced it.  At least you took the time to look at it which is more than most people on here would do.

My wife and I looked at it and came to the conclusion (she happened to be in the room at the same time.)

Then I was curious to see where the graph came from so I typed in the logo at the bottom and found it in about 5 seconds.

You can conclude what you want.

[The Chad Cometh]

I actually got that graph from an article I was reading about this issue. Looks like you caught me with my pants down, kudos for doing the reading that I plainly didn't do.

I'm really busy at work right now, but I have a few other nuggets you may find interesting (or not  ).
I'll put em up here when I get some time.

[hunterwh]

Man-Made Global Warming Hoax
Excerpts reprinted with permission from Tom Gremillion
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
            Global warming is a hoax, invented in 1988, that combines old myths including limits to growth, sustainability, the population growth time bomb, the depletion of resources, pollution, anti-Americanism and anti-corporate sentiment and, of all things, fear of an ice age. Those that espoused and supported the old myths have joined forced into a new group called ?Environmentalists.?

Most environmentalists have no technical or scientific credentials whatsoever. What they have are major news outlets ready and willing to publicize their every utterance regardless of whether or not they are backed up by scientific proof. Atmospheric science requires highly technical knowledge and skills, not possessed by the vast majority of the so-called environmentalists, who yet feel qualified to demand that human activity subjugate itself to the whims of their new deity, Mother Nature.

Environmentalists claim that the Earth?s atmosphere is getting hotter. They claim that the polar icecaps and glaciers will melt and sea levels will rise over two hundred feet, flooding most coastal cities. They claim that many areas of the Earth will turn into deserts. They make all these claims but cannot substantiate them with real scientific evidence. Parts of the polar icecap and glaciers are melting but other areas of the polar icecaps and glaciers are thickening. The environmentalists base their ?proof? of the existence of global warming on the melting areas but are strangely silent, even militant to the point of violence, if anyone mentions the areas that are thickening, and those thickening areas are many.

In the past, there have been many times when the global mean temperatures were warmer, sometimes much warmer and colder, much colder than they are now. Global mean temperatures are cyclical with the seasons but also with other normal cycles, as they have been for the entire history of the Earth. Scientific data from ice cores, tree rings and other indicators of global mean temperatures prove this. Human activity has never been the cause of these global temperature swings as the ?global warming? advocates claim. If human activity was the cause, where were the SUVs, the power plants and industries in our historical past? They did not exist. If human activity was not the cause of these global temperature swings, what was?

The energy output of the Sun is far greater in one second than human activity could produce in a million years. The Earth rotates around the Sun. Its orbit is slightly elliptical. The energy reaching the Earth from the Sun varies slightly as the distance from the Sun to the Earth varies due to its elliptical orbit. The Sun activity increases and decreases with fluctuations in the solar flares emitted by the Sun. Differences in these fluctuation rates cause increases and decreases of solar energy hitting the Earth. This causes fluctuations in the global mean temperature of the Earth?s atmosphere.

In 2004, the energy from massive solar flares bombarded the Earth with solar energy. This solar energy caused heating of the Earth?s surface and atmosphere. Most of the energy of the solar flare eruptions dissipated into space. The amounts of energy ejected were massive, much greater than normal. Had the Earth received a full blast of the solar energy from one of the numerous flare eruptions in 2004, the consequences to life on Earth could have been disastrous. The higher than usual amounts of energy that struck the Earth?s atmosphere did have their effects, however, including some heating of the atmosphere.

Then there is the eruption of volcanoes, such as Mt. St. Helens, ejecting dust and ash into the Earth?s atmosphere. The amount of dust and ash in the atmosphere varies the amount of energy that can cause heating or cooling of the Earth?s atmosphere. Volcanoes also eject the kind of compounds that environmentalists call greenhouse gases. A single eruption the size of the Mt. St. Helens eruption released more of these gases, dust and ash into the atmosphere than all such emissions by human activity since the beginning of recorded human history. And there are numerous volcanic eruptions yearly.

The oceans are also a major source of greenhouse gases, as are trees. Trees and other vegetation take in carbon dioxide and give off other gases such as methane, a major greenhouse gas, and a host of other compounds, many of which are also greenhouse gases. Decaying vegetation also gives off methane gas. Studies of smog in the Los Angeles basin indicate that over 90% of the smog is generated by the vegetation in the area. To aid in perpetuating the hoax, however, environmentalists, aided by major news media outlets, censored and suppressed this study.

Studies have shown that greenhouse gases produced by human activity accounts for around 1 percent of the gases in the atmosphere. The total elimination of human generated greenhouse gases would have a negligible effect on Earth?s global mean atmospheric temperatures. The elimination of all U.S. gasoline powered vehicles would reduce worldwide ?greenhouse? emissions by less than 0.2%.? What would be the effect on global mean temperatures? None. Doubling of manmade greenhouse emissions above current levels would increase the global mean temperature by one degree Centigrade, which is within the normal range of temperature swings.

It is the fluctuations of the Earth?s orbit around the sun, volcanic eruptions, the emission of gases by oceans and trees, all natural occurrences, that cause rises and declines in global mean temperatures, i.e., ?global warming? and ?global cooling,? not human activity.

Satellite data taken over the past 25 years indicate no surface or atmospheric warming. If anything there has been a very slight cooling, on the order of 0.01 degree Centigrade.

Recently, astronomers have noticed a thinning of the polar icecaps on Mars.

Is this ?global warming, Mars style? and do Martian SUVs, power plants, and industries cause it? Hardly, but the ?environmentalists? think so. Some even blame it on us here on Earth.

Global warming IS a hoax. Those claiming that ?global warming? is real have an agenda other than saving the planet from human activity.

[SLCPUNK]

What a load.

This guy listed none of his sources. (And I looked online for them)

He attacks the "environmentalists", but excludes the scientists who (around the globe) unanimously believe that human beings contribute to global warming.

Here's my favorite line:

"Most environmentalists have no technical or scientific credentials whatsoever." Well does Tom Gremillion? I can't find any information about him, other than this reposted on blogs.

LOL, too many logical fallacies to list here.

[Mama Kin]

It would be foolish to believe that indsutrialization has no impact on the Earth, of course it does. However, it's also foolish to believe the Earth will not right itsef, as it always has. The Earth has been through much, much worse than humans.

Again, there's not enough data present to conclude that humans are the cause of all global warming, as opposed to natural cycles of the Earth. Keep in mind, we've only been on the Earth for perhaps 200,000 years and only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over 200. The Earth itself is 4.5 billion or so years old......We do not and can not know our full impact on the Earth.

To assume we can correct whatever damage we have done is the same arrogant meddling that got us where we are in the first place.

[SLCPUNK]

Again, there's not enough data present to conclude that humans are the cause of all global warming, as opposed to natural cycles of the Earth.

False.

And again the scientific community agrees that we do contribute to global warming. Why do you continue to be willfully ignorant of this?

[Mama Kin]

It would be foolish to believe that indsutrialization has no impact on the Earth, of course it does.

For the same reasons you refuse to read.

[SLCPUNK]

For the same reasons you refuse to read.

LOL. Well I read that wrong I agree, it's late, so I apologize.

The argument is not that humans are the entire cause of global warming. Those who claim we contribute to this, usually claim that it is along side natural cycles of warming and cooling. I also don't think anybody is trying to correct what we have done per se, but perhaps slow it down and begin to look for alternative forms of energy.  Gore spoke about that in his movie.

[Mama Kin]

If you read into the history of science at all, you'll see that scientists knew things for sure, 100% abolsutely correct. All I am saying is, there's no reason to believe them wholesale now. I stand behind scientists 1110% over anything the Church has to say, however, I also realize how scitenists draw their conclusions and oftentimes, they'll fund what the people paying them want them to find.

Just because something is true today, doesn't mean it will be true tomorrow. It's not a flaw, it's just the evolution of ideas. Science often drags its feet from one school of thought to another.

The cycles of the Earth are by and large closed, the water cycle for example. All the water that is here and all the water that ever will be here is here. Rain isn't new water, it's just water which has re-entered the cycle. Same goes for the carbon which is burnt off by burning fossil fuels, it's re-entering the cycle. Life does not exist without carbon and carbon which lay dormant as oil is re-enter into the cycle as it's burnt off, resulting in more life. Global warming and the greenhouse effect are both naturally occuring processes on Earth.

Again, I restate, the Earth will not end until the Sun becomes a Red Dwarf, humankind will end before the Earth does, again, this is a natural process. All the recycled paper in the world will not change this fact.

[Guns N RockMusic]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4480559399263937213&q=penn+and+teller+bullshit


Please watch this video!  i was looking everywhere to find this on the net.  It does a good job on showing how out of touch the environmental movement is and how poorly informed most of its biggest supporters are.

[Guns N RockMusic]

Again, I restate, the Earth will not end until the Sun becomes a Red Dwarf, humankind will end before the Earth does, again, this is a natural process. All the recycled paper in the world will not change this fact.

Good post Mama Kin, but our Sun will become either a Red Giant or White Dwarf.  Most Scientist say a Red giant.  There is no such thing as a red dwarf.

[pilferk]

Again, I restate, the Earth will not end until the Sun becomes a Red Dwarf, humankind will end before the Earth does, again, this is a natural process. All the recycled paper in the world will not change this fact.

Good post Mama Kin, but our Sun will become either a Red Giant or White Dwarf.  Most Scientist say a Red giant.  There is no such thing as a red dwarf.

1) It exists as a hilariously funny British comedy!

2) Red Dwarf stars certaily do exist.  You can see them on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, FYI. 

Here's the first reputable google result:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/dark_matter_011205.html

[Guns N RockMusic]

Ok Pilferk, but ain't that kind of strecthing it.  You're going into dark matter and stuff that we don't understand or fully agree on yet.  Aren't the four conventional and probable outcomes of Stars: Red Giant, White Dwarf, Black Hole and Neutron Star?

[pilferk]

Ok Pilferk, but ain't that kind of strecthing it.  You're going into dark matter and stuff that we don't understand or fully agree on yet.  Aren't the four conventional and probable outcomes of Stars: Red Giant, White Dwarf, Black Hole and Neutron Star?

No, that just happened to be the first article on a reputable site mentioning their existence.  Do a quick google search, for gods sake.

Here's the wiki article, as well as some others:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dwarf

http://experts.about.com/e/r/re/red_dwarf.htm

http://apod.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap991120.html

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/stars/startypes.shtml

http://www.kidsastronomy.com/stars.htm

So...can you now admit you were mistaken and we can move on?

Edit: You're confusing the LIFECYCLE of a star with the different TYPES of stars, I think.

Red dwarfs "exist"...that's what you were mistaken about.  You are correct in pointing out Mama Kin's mistaken use of terminology about what our sun will "evolve" into.

[Guns N RockMusic]

I admit that I was wrong as in their existence.  But they're not common by any stretch compared to the types of stars I mentioned.  Our sun is not going to turn into a red dwarf, which was my point.  Dark matter is still a "new" science and not fully understood, much like anti-matter, worm holes, white-holes etc.

[pilferk]

I admit that I was wrong as in their existence.  But they're not common by any stretch compared to the types of stars I mentioned.  Our sun is not going to turn into a red dwarf, which was my point.  Dark matter is still a "new" science and not fully understood, much like anti-matter, worm holes, white-holes etc.

Red dwarfs are thought to be the single most common star type in the universe.

Again, google search and read.

Yes, you're correct: Our sun will not turn into a red dwarf.

Read my edits in last post.