Global Warming? are humans to blame?

What made Al Gore a climate expert?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2000/mar/25/20000325-011032-8259r/?page=all

Paragraphs 7 and 8 are very interesting.

"At Vanderbilt divinity school, Mr. Gore took a course in theology and natural science. The assigned readings included the apocalyptic, and widely discredited "Limits to Growth," which formed much of the foundation for "Earth in the Balance." It is said that Mr. Gore failed to hand in his book report on time. Thus, his incomplete grade turned into an F, one of five Fs Mr. Gore received at divinity school, which may well be a worldwide record."

 

I wasn't trying to insert God in the conversation. I was only expressing my view the only thing that could be SOOOO wrong.

Other wise I don't believe in degrees of wrong.

Everything else is either simply wrong or right.

 

Apparently you don't understand the English language? Outside a Thai bar, "I think' generally means 'to the best of my recollection, but I wouldn't guarantee it.' What's 'back peddling' about that?

Where I come from, they call your unwarranted attacks on anything and everything Yobarnacle says 'trolling.' What does your bartender call it?

 

Applying himself to learning everything he could about it. What makes you an expert?

 

I actually passed climatology and meteorology classes in college, unlike Al Gore.

 

In the same article referenced above it says "Consider also a letter from Harvard that young Al sent to his father, the senator. "We do have inveterate antipathy for communism or paranoia, as I like to put it," he wrote, commenting on America's fear of communism. He went on to say that such a "psychological ailment" was a "case of national madness." Now, as it happens, Mr. Gore's letter was written decades after the Ukrainian famine and other Stalinist horrors, all perpetrated in the name of communism, had killed more comrades than Hitler did. His letter was written after Mao's disastrous Great Leap Forward and in the midst of Communist China's crazed Cultural Revolution. It sure sounds like this Harvard undergraduate had somehow managed to absorb the political bias of most of his lectures."
Yet you say this is not an effort to seize power by the left and make us all serfs.

 

Religion has always been the main manipulator of the human race,it was,and still is the main scaremonger tactic.The only person watching is yourself,and if you can live with it moraly,so be it.

 

Sorry, but I don't buy it. Having excellent judgment as a test pilot hardly gives someone's opinions on scientific subjects any clout.

My record as a contractor was impeccable; nothing I built has ever underperformed, fallen down, been condemned or otherwise proven me wrong. So I'd say that's a pretty good demonstration that my judgment and decision-making abilities in my own field should be respected. But does that give me any special expertise when it comes to climate change? Of course not.

And of course you're quite wrong, when you claim that climate models have been 'wrong' for 22 years. They've been updated, adjusted, corrected and improved as better information comes in, and that's called 'science.' But none of them have been proven wrong, in the sense that you're apparently using the word. In fact, most of them have turned out to be too conservative.

That's from this site, which has a pretty good overview of the subject: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

Of course, you'll probably want to stay away from it. It has stuff in it you don't want to hear....

If you want infallibility in the original written word instead of the scientific system, better stick to scripture.

 

the post :

Because if you don't believe in God, he's going to hold it against you for eternity? Please explain why an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-pervasive supreme being would even care whether you believe in him or not. Much less be so petty and vindictive about it if you don't....

I don't buy the argument that "you better play safe and believe in God, because if you don't and he's real, he's going to fry your arse until the end of time." It sounds suspiciously like, "you better believe in Santa. Because if you don't and he turns out to be real, you aren't getting any presents on Christmas morning."

I don't know if there's a God as we define him or not, but I'm not particularly worried about it. It's a question that won't be answered during my lifetime, and that will definitely be answered at the end of it. Meanwhile, I live my life as best I can by the standards I was raised with, and don't worry about who might be watching.

If there is a God, I'm sure we'll get along fine when I've crossed the bar. I can't imagine Him being anything like the scumbags who use His name to intimidate and control people. end quote

attributed to me was Troys response to me. Not my words.

 

He seems to have gotten his quote marks wrapped inside out, when he responded to my words as quoted by you. Hopefully everyone understands it was me.

 

The IPCC and many (not all) climate scientists claim CO2 drives climate. They vociferously warned that increase CO2 would mean similar increased temperatures.

Look at the chart. Nothing in it alarms me. But it alarms those who predicted high levels CO2 meant high temperatures! Their credibility is in the toilet! Temperature rise didn't happen in the amount predicted. Don't see any likely hood it wil happen, based on the real data.
Looks to me temperatures are nomal and similar to epochs past.

 

Oh, come on. This ground has been trodden how many times in this very thread? If you cherry-pick your graphs and charts, then cherry-pick your interpretations of those graphs and charts, you can make them say anything you want. Of course, what you come up with will fly in the face of the conclusions come to by the vast majority of scientists looking at those same charts and graphs....

In fact, it's hard to find a prominent critic of climate change who isn't actively whoring for the oil industry and other big corporations, and being well paid for it.

Go look at the graphs in the link I gave above, and read the commentary on them. They have 'real data,' too.

 

I did read them. They said predictions expected a .3 degree C rise per decade, and we only had .2 degree C rise. They say this proves the models work. They show models with various predictions from minimal to frightening temperature rise. Of the many scenarios, the .3 degree rise was a moderate prediction. I don't doubt these are what the models predicted, when inserting different datas or possibilities.
The actual temperatures are way down, somewhat consistent with only the most moderate predictions.

But moderate predictions of small temperature rise is not what the brouhaha is all about. Nobody is justifiably worried about .2 degree C per decade! Or that it will keep rising for 100s of years.
And a .3 instead of a .2 is a 150% off prediction. Not accurate, not even close.
I don't think anyone wants taxes 150% higher!

Can you deny the published message for past 20 years has been "We need to immediately and drastically change, or we will have catastophic temperature rise because of CO2!"
I can only conclude they meant the highest temperature rise predictions. Now they claim they only predicted moderate rise. Scoff!

 

The first decade of the twenty-first century was the hottest since recordkeeping began in 1880. With an average global temperature of 14.52 degrees C (58.1 degrees F), this decade was 0.2 degrees C (0.36 degrees F) warmer than any previous decade. The year 2005 was the hottest on record, while 2007 and 2009 tied for second hottest. In fact, 9 of the 10 warmest years on record occurred in the past decade.
Temperature rise has accelerated in recent decades. The earth’s temperature is now 0.8 degrees C (1.4 degrees F) higher than it was in the first decade of the twentieth century, and two-thirds of that increase has taken place since 1970.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/past-decade-the-hottest-on-record/

If the recent decade was .2 C warmer and warmest on record.

What record?
certainly not the geological record!

 

Its another no brainer, If some few "scientists" who have little or nothing to do with climate science, and don't understand the study, don't like what some of the climate scientists at NASA are doing, tough.

or as the most recent chief scientist at NASA put it

None of the "scientists" who participated in the letter are climate scientists, as far as I know.

and from a climate scientist we have the following response

So once again the fallacy of climate denial is exposed for what it is.

Ahahahaahahahahahahahhahahahahahaahahhahahah

when will these people have embarrassed themselves enough ?

sure science demands we remain open minded, but really, what specific objections other than political were made in that letter, none .