Jump to content

Gore at it again


Recommended Posts

Why would 99% of scientists falsify evidence? Better question: Who is paying this guy? Follow the money. NewsBusters: Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias is your source? Not legitimate. This denial of yours is pathetic.

LOL why not read and find out if it is true?

Follow the money you say.

Guess what!

Most of the money flows into the pockets of those who say man are the main driver of the slow and small warming we see.The skeptics are the ones who get by on small funding.

BILLIONS for the alarmists.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Few millions for the skeptics.$$$

LOL

Your denial of newsbusters itself is not valid.It is what is posted that must be judged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It certainly affects the crediblity of something when its most visible proponents are obviously full of shit. The MMGW folks can howl about "big oil" funding the dissidents, but that tends to pale in comparison to the other side being flat out wrong.

Besides, for anonymous internet posters who have to contend with the entire credible scientific community telling them they haven't a clue, there's nothing left to do but to swift-boat. Perhaps it's time to start questioning why Gore was just a journalist in the Vietnam war.

What no rebuttal to the posted links author?

Hint: It is not Gore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The graphs below are from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website: http://www.ipcc.ch/

Recognizing the problem of potential global climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988.

Global temperature change, 1861-2000 and 1000-2000

Indicators of the human influence on the atmosphere

CO2 concentration, temperature, and sea level continue to rise long after emissions are reduced

The last graph shows why we're doomed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The graphs below are from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website: http://www.ipcc.ch/

Recognizing the problem of potential global climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988.

Global temperature change, 1861-2000 and 1000-2000

Indicators of the human influence on the atmosphere

CO2 concentration, temperature, and sea level continue to rise long after emissions are reduced

The last graph shows why we're doomed.

You must be new. These have already been exposed, trashed, laughed at, and set out to sea. "Doomed?" Is this the new millenium "nuclear holocaust" thingy for the postadolescents of this generation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it's a matter of credibility. Your mind will not be changed.

Your's will. Down the road in 10 years or so you'll start to have doubts when things are not spontaneously combusting just in time to be doused by Tsunamis. 20 years you'll notice that pretty much nothing has changed and no one has been talking about it for about 15 years or so...30 years and you'll be feeling foolish or will have moved on to the next big scare...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global temperature change, 1861-2000 and 1000-2000

The Hockey Stick paper has been discredited and the IPCC does not mention it in their latest 2007 report.

It is amazing that you still use it.

The SURFACE temperature data from the 1221 weather stations are under a current AUDIT.The early results show a clear warming bias in the data.If you really care to learn about it go look up Anthony Watts website.

STRIKE 1

Indicators of the human influence on the atmosphere

CO2 atmospheric gas has been higher than now just 50 years ago using a different method of measuring.

Methane no longer increasing and has not been for a few years.

STRIKE 2

CO2 concentration, temperature, and sea level continue to rise long after emissions are reduced

This is stupid.

You are using a chart of PROJECTED climate reactions a 100 and more years from now! To say we are doomed.This is not science because there is no way to test it and no verification is possible for at least 100 years.

The temperature data used in the chart does not as yet exist for most of the projected future warming.The current and past temperature data are being AUDITED and so far found to be biased to the warming.There are many examples of terrible placements of the measuring devices being shown.Anthony Watts has shown a doozy yesterday on his website showing where the senser is located on top of the building surrounded by many heat exhausted air vents.

STRIKE 3

You are way behind the curve since all those links you provided has been looked over and found to be wanting.Some of it rebuted long ago.

Try reading up on new stuff that will educate you:

http://www.surfacestations.org/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are using a chart of PROJECTED climate reactions a 100 and more years from now! To say we are doomed.This is not science because there is no way to test it and no verification is possible for at least 100 years.

Does that mean that all projections are not scientific?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many examples of terrible placements of the measuring devices being shown.Anthony Watts has shown a doozy yesterday on his website showing where the senser is located on top of the building surrounded by many heat exhausted air vents.

Now, that would be unscientific, even stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it's a matter of credibility. Your mind will not be changed.

You used old debunked links.

You lack credibility in using that stupid Hockey Stick.

Do you realize that the H. S. paper contradicted DECADES of climate and geological research that determined that MWP and the LIA existed and was global?

Do you know that the IPCC took that paper into their 2001 report despite that it was not validated or even been given proper peer review beforehand?

Do you realize that when a couple of NON scientists asked for the H.S. paper data.Mann would not provide it for a long time and when he did it was only partial?

Do you even know what data Mann and his secretive group was using?

Did you know that the hockey stick paper was only for the NORTHERN HEMISHERE?

Have you followed a certain website that step by step over 2 years showed why the Hockey Stick paper was bad? The person who blew open the Mann paper is an expert in statistical analysis and was backed up by some of the worlds top statistical experts.

If this was all you could provide in those 3 links.You have no credible support that we are near doomsday.

Why are you so easily decieved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many examples of terrible placements of the measuring devices being shown.Anthony Watts has shown a doozy yesterday on his website showing where the senser is located on top of the building surrounded by many heat exhausted air vents.

Now, that would be unscientific, even stupid.

And yet the data from them are the ones Gore,Hansen,Schmidt,Jones,and others like the most.It is the only source of data that even show any kind of warming in recent years that seems to show accelerated warming.

The Satellite data does not.Neither the weather balloons and Radio Sonde balloons show it.

ONLY the surface weather station data are the ones they like.They ignore the other temperature data sources.Have you noticed that?

Thank you for agreeing with skeptics.

LOL

Edited by sunsettommy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I checked that website surfacestations.org which showed that Anthony Watts works for a company called IntelliWeather which is owned by a company called ITWorks. I found their website (itworks.com) and found the following information:

ItWorks was founded in 1987, by Anthony Watts, Who got his start as on-air meteorologist for WLFI-TV in Lafayette, IN and also at KHSL-TV in Chico,CA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are using a chart of PROJECTED climate reactions a 100 and more years from now! To say we are doomed.This is not science because there is no way to test it and no verification is possible for at least 100 years.

Does that mean that all projections are not scientific?

When they can not be validated or falsified.

NO!

Did you even look at the chart I responded to?

Take note at how far into the future they were projecting.

This is worthless stuff when we can not know for at least 100 years that they are close to the real climate.

Maybe you go read what the "scientific method" is before you want to continue using this unverifiable stuff again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I checked that website surfacestations.org which showed that Anthony Watts works for a company called IntelliWeather which is owned by a company called ITWorks. I found their website (itworks.com) and found the following information:

ItWorks was founded in 1987, by Anthony Watts, Who got his start as on-air meteorologist for WLFI-TV in Lafayette, IN and also at KHSL-TV in Chico,CA.

This guy is a peddler. Where's the science? Follow the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for agreeing with skeptics.

I agreed with nothing. I'd like to see some citations.

I already posted the link and you already were there.

Too bad you tried a dumb smear on Anthony Watts.

It must suck to have no rebutting material against the Auditing process.

Why you even doing this since you are showing you ignorance so openly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for agreeing with skeptics.

I agreed with nothing. I'd like to see some citations.

I already posted the link and you already were there.

Too bad you tried a dumb smear on Anthony Watts.

It must suck to have no rebutting material against the Auditing process.

Why you even doing this since you are showing you ignorance so openly?

You have a smart mouth. Both you and Watts have questionable credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hockey Stick paper has been discredited and the IPCC does not mention it in their latest 2007 report.

I looked for the 2007 report, but it shows that is has not yet been released. May I have a link to it?

LOL you are so far out of the loop you failed to know that portions have been released already.

Reviewers have commented on it.

I will not bother providing any more links because you already smeared Anthony watts like the ignoramus you must be since you had a grand total of 15 minutes to make the smear all the while not a single rebuttal was ever made against the Auditing process.The website if properly read would take a few hours.

You indicate to me that you care less about the Auditing of official weather reportion stations.

Pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will not bother providing any more links because you already smeared Anthony watts like the ignoramus you must be since you had a grand total of 15 minutes to make the smear all the while not a single rebuttal was ever made against the Auditing process.The website if properly read would take a few hours.

Pathetic.

Always consider the source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Written by Xman:

You have a smart mouth. Both you and Watts have questionable credibility.

Where oh where are those rebuttals? Smears are not valid rebuttals fella.

Let's see additions sources. If it's true, others must know - others involved with the science.

There has NEVER been an Audit of all the SURFACE weather reporting stations.

Anthony Watts you have smeared so quickly is the first person to do it.

Your ignorance is obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will not bother providing any more links because you already smeared Anthony watts like the ignoramus you must be since you had a grand total of 15 minutes to make the smear all the while not a single rebuttal was ever made against the Auditing process.The website if properly read would take a few hours.

Pathetic.

Always consider the source.

Yup YOU have no rebuttal to offer just juvenile and stupid smears.

LOL

Another superficial AGW is all I see in you.

There has been many responses by a number of climate scientists.But you do not know since you are too busy being ignorant of what is going on.I have read many of their comments over the Auditing process.

You have not read anything since you are NOT interested in learning the issue.

Edited by sunsettommy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,751
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • wwef235 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • phoenyx75 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • User went up a rank
      Mentor
    • NakedHunterBiden earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Videospirit earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...