five years later

[sprinter]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/12/five-years-ago-today-al-gore-predicted-the-north-pole-will-be-ice-free-in-5-years/

 

for those who believed the lies

[cal50]

Some still do....

 

I would love to see Al Gore hug a polar bear......

[FiredMotorCompany]

Some still do....

 

I would love to see Al Gore hug a polar bear......

I'll get the bear.

You bring the Gore.

 

I bet the bear will "love Gore" more than Gore will "love" the bear.

[phil1336]

Whats the point? Gore`s prediction was off? There is still some Ice Cap left at (both) the North & South Poles? There is still an Ice Shelf remaining in Iceland? Satellite images don`t lie. A significant amount of Ice is no longer present. The Ocean level (is) rising and communities in coastal areas are seeing more severe and frequent flooding during non-hurricane and tropical storm events! Funny, regardless what is stated, if it is made by a Liberal Democrat leaning individual it must be dismissed out of hand as false or a lie. A equally or more outlandish statement is made by a Conservative Republican leaning individual and its excepted as Holy Scripture from Gods mouth to the Faithful`s ears.

Edited December 16, 2013 by phil1336

[cal50]

The point is the earth as we known it in the short time man has been around has gone thru many changes. Reversal of magnetic poles, formation of continents , ice age and whats coming next many years after all of us are long gone.

Gore is free to believe what he wants but is still a hypocrite and generally a well rounded idiot on the topic.

 

The warming alarmists have problems explaining away some collected data that is not in line with their narrative.

 

And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year

• 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
• BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
• Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

[napfirst]

The point is the earth as we known it in the short time man has been around has gone thru many changes. Reversal of magnetic poles, formation of continents , ice age and whats coming next many years after all of us are long gone.

Gore is free to believe what he wants but is still a hypocrite and generally a well rounded idiot on the topic.

 

The warming alarmists have problems explaining away some collected data that is not in line with their narrative.

 

And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year

• 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
• BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
• Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

Don't confuse him with the facts...

[the_spaniard]

Whether Gore is a chowder-head or not, I tend to follow the relevant scientific literature.

 

97% of scientists that published research on global warming from 1991-2011 were pro-MMGW.

[RangerM]

97% of scientists that published research on global warming from 1991-2011 were pro-MMGW.

I saw John Cook's report suggesting that.

 

It's been debunked.

[cal50]

Yep.

[FiredMotorCompany]

Whats the point? Gore`s prediction was off? There is still some Ice Cap left at (both) the North & South Poles? There is still an Ice Shelf remaining in Iceland? Satellite images don`t lie. A significant amount of Ice is no longer present. The Ocean level (is) rising and communities in coastal areas are seeing more severe and frequent flooding during non-hurricane and tropical storm events! Funny, regardless what is stated, if it is made by a Liberal Democrat leaning individual it must be dismissed out of hand as false or a lie. A equally or more outlandish statement is made by a Conservative Republican leaning individual and its excepted as Holy Scripture from Gods mouth to the Faithful`s ears.

Despite my better judgement, I'll entertain the rest of the members here.

 

While I concede that Climate Change has/is/will occur, a stand by this statement, "Man caused climate change is a fraud."

 

In the 150-200 years or so that industrial production has existed in any significant level, the variations in weather are not so extreme.

 

In terms of 500-1000 years, much greater change occurred, without human intervention to blame. And The Ice Age was by far much greater in terms of extremes, and occurred long before man could do much more than build a camp fire to stay warm.

 

Earth-Sun orbits and solar output variations, volcanic ash clouds, meteor impacts (Tunguska Event, et al) generated greater airborne particulates than the global industrial output of today.

 

A hundred years? That's not even a blink of an eye in geologic terms, and only a breath or two in terms of mankind's experience.

 

Recent reports suggest global temperatures were much warmer in the past thousand years. Any human influence would not be worth consideration relative to it's possible climate effects.

 

I suggest we have more to be concerned about celestial impacts such as we saw last year in Russia, and a smaller non-impact object recently observed over the US, than spending our time trying to create some money making scheme based on Carbon Offsets. Anyone buying into that scam is asking to be taken to the cleaners by Al gore and his co-conspirators, in a way that would make Bernie Madoff look like a amateur pick-pocket in Sunday School. In just the past few months, astronomers warned the risks of a catastrophic impact are orders of magnitude higher than previously predicted. And the only practical way to avert an impact is to take action years before the event. Waiting until such a threat inters the solar system, the forces needed to make an effective change in flight path become insurmountable. Whereas a gentile nudge from a nuclear warhead, detonated while the object is as far away as we can detect and intercept it, would be sufficient.

 

As Trim would say, Global Man-Caused Climate Change is the latest in a long line of "religions". There is as much true, provable, concrete evidence to support it as there is proving Sasquatch and the Loch Ness Monster are real.

 

The math and orbital mechanics, along with direct observations and physical evidence, are clearly established and irrefutable that NASA's NEO Program (Near Earth Objects) are a threat we are unprepared to deal with.

 

Here is just one example, with a possible impact in 2015.

 

2013 WV44

Earth Impact Risk Summary

 

Edited December 17, 2013 by FiredMotorCompany

[the_spaniard]

Crok is the messiah of the denier movement.

 

I'd prefer to see something published by someone that doesn't have the biggest axe to grind against MMGW, who pretty much coined the phrase "ClimateGate". While an effective journalist, Crok has no real academic credentials as a scientist (An MSc in Chemistry, and has he ever been published in a peer reviewed academic journal?) This is the man that attacks both the IPCC and the Kyoto protocol. He is the most public figure against the argument, and has gone as far as to call members of the IPCC "left-wing" voters. What he fails to realize is that a lot of climate science is not based on Gore's hockey stick.

 

The 97% number is also in the ballpark with previous studies conducted by other researchers.

 

 

 

I saw John Cook's report suggesting that.

 

It's been debunked.

[cal50]

I am more concerned where all the "hot" radioactive water went and the results from Fukushima nuke plant since that can directly affect people now Vs something that is debatable for effect years down the road.

Much like the leaky well in the gulf you hear little about now or the after effects as if its "all better" and never happened.

[TomServo92]

Not one of the 73 climate computer models cited by the IPCC has accurately predicted global temperature change. So why are we continuing to rely on these models to set climate policy?

[FiredMotorCompany]

Not one of the 73 climate computer models cited by the IPCC has accurately predicted global temperature change. So why are we continuing to rely on these models to set climate policy?

Because they confirm what we want to believe and are psychologically invested in.

 

AND, nobody wants to admit they screwed up.

[NickF1011]

Because they confirm what we want to believe and are psychologically invested in.

 

AND, nobody wants to admit they screwed up.

 

Well, that and computer modeling is just that. It's modeling, not time travel.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

Well, that and computer modeling is just that. It's modeling, not time travel.

Or it's wishful thinking.

 

On a similar note, the preacher who TWICE predicted the end of the world, Harold Camping, has died.

 

He blamed his first missed deadline on a mathematical mistake.

 

The second time?

 

"Uh, we were wrong."

 

 

 

While I don't condone his fear mongering tactics, I do think he was motivated not by personal gain, as Al Gore is in his fight against Coal, but by a deep personal conviction that he could reach multitudes and save them from damnation.

 

And he did have the integrity to admit his failures....then proclaim he would no longer make predictions of when the apocalypse would occur.

 

Man Made Global Warming "believers" need their "Come to Jesus" moment to face up to their failed attempts to document and project the effects of mankind on the global temperature average.

 

Harold Camping Admits He Was Wrong About End Of World Prediction March 9, 2012

After May 21 came and went, many listeners were crestfallen, particularly those who had quit their jobs or donated some of their retirement savings or college funds to get out the word. Three days later, Camping revised his prophecy, saying that Earth actually would be obliterated on Oct. 21. He said a mathematical error also prevented an earlier apocalyptic prediction from materializing in 1994.

Several weeks later, however, Camping was hospitalized after suffering a mild stroke and spent months recuperating.

Camping said he would instead concentrate on deepening his faith through rereading the Scriptures.

"God has humbled us through the events of May 21," he wrote. "We must also openly acknowledge that we have no new evidence pointing to another date for the end of the world."

[Langston Hughes]

Ok, so Al Gore and people who specifically bought into the Ice prediction need to fess up. Big deal. Your not suggesting all Christians ( believers in God) need to have a "Come to Jesus" moment to face up to their failed attempts to document and project the coming of the Lord and the end days.

 

After all believers in Christ have been predicting the end of the world for thousands of years, and many millions of times more than believers in human forcing.

[RangerM]

Crok is the messiah of the denier movement.

 

I'd prefer to see something published by someone that doesn't have the biggest axe to grind against MMGW, who pretty much coined the phrase "ClimateGate". While an effective journalist, Crok has no real academic credentials as a scientist (An MSc in Chemistry, and has he ever been published in a peer reviewed academic journal?) This is the man that attacks both the IPCC and the Kyoto protocol. He is the most public figure against the argument, and has gone as far as to call members of the IPCC "left-wing" voters. What he fails to realize is that a lot of climate science is not based on Gore's hockey stick.

 

The 97% number is also in the ballpark with previous studies conducted by other researchers.

Regardless of what you think of Crok (and he was repeating what another person had previously reported), he was using the guidelines of the original report itself to refute its conclusion.

 

And your statement, "97% of scientists that published research on global warming from 1991-2011" is so specific I concluded you could only be referring to the John Cook paper.

 

If there are other corroborating studies independent of John Cook, feel free to post the links.

Edited December 18, 2013 by RangerM

[FiredMotorCompany]

After all believers in Christ have been predicting the end of the world for thousands of years, and many millions of times more than believers in human forcing.

But those how bought into the believers prediction of the end of the world only failed themselves and didn't use the EPA to destroy the power producing industry and countless other attempts to FORCE the world to buy electric cars, solar panels, windmills,..........

 

They just bought Bibles and huddled together and prayed their friends and families will be saved from burning damnation for all eternity.

 

Thanks for conceding Al was wrong. But, how about his scheme for Carbon Credits? A "new" monetary system that I have no doubt he'd be enriched beyond all imagination as it's leading proponent and creator.

[Langston Hughes]

But those how bought into the believers prediction of the end of the world only failed themselves and didn't use the EPA to destroy the power producing industry and countless other attempts to FORCE the world to buy electric cars, solar panels, windmills,..........

 

They just bought Bibles and huddled together and prayed their friends and families will be saved from burning damnation for all eternity.

 

Thanks for conceding Al was wrong. But, how about his scheme for Carbon Credits? A "new" monetary system that I have no doubt he'd be enriched beyond all imagination as it's leading proponent and creator.

 

You have a limited view of history because Christian have used governments to FORCE their views of the "Coming of the Lord" upon the people.

 

 

And not everyone who believes in human forcing is a doomsday prophet just as not all Christians are the same?

[Langston Hughes]

Don't confuse him with the facts...

 

The are facts only in that they are true. The 2013 sea ice increase over 2012 is only one year and not a statistical trend.

 

1. What he did not mention is that 2012 is currently the lowest sea ice year on record.

 

2. Even if you add in 500,000 square miles 2013 still has less square miles than 5 of the last 6 years.

 

3. Even with the increase he posted the total square miles would still be well below the average and below the previous record low in 2007.

 

So if people are confused by his "facts" it's because they don't help your argument at all. I'm confused as to why he mentioned it at all.

[FiredMotorCompany]

And not everyone who believes in human forcing is a doomsday prophet just as not all Christians are the same?

I'm sure that statement made sense to you when you thunk it.

But, for the rest of us who are not inside your head, it's clear as mud.

[NickF1011]

 

The are facts only in that they are true. The 2013 sea ice increase over 2012 is only one year and not a statistical trend.

 

1. What he did not mention is that 2012 is currently the lowest sea ice year on record.

 

2. Even if you add in 500,000 square miles 2013 still has less square miles than 5 of the last 6 years.

 

3. Even with the increase he posted the total square miles would still be well below the average and below the previous record low in 2007.

 

So if people are confused by his "facts" it's because they don't help your argument at all. I'm confused as to why he mentioned it at all.

 

One of those pesky things about statistics. Out of context you can make them say whatever you want.

 

I don't deny MMGW. What I am against though is knee-jerk, one-sided legislation that likely won't make any significant impact to MMGW's effects while instead doing considerable damage to our economy and standard of living.

[Langston Hughes]

 

One of those pesky things about statistics. Out of context you can make them say whatever you want.

 

I don't deny MMGW. What I am against though is knee-jerk, one-sided legislation that likely won't make any significant impact to MMGW's effects while instead doing considerable damage to our economy and standard of living.

 

Okay, I understand that.

[Langston Hughes]

I'm sure that statement made sense to you when you thunk it.

But, for the rest of us who are not inside your head, it's clear as mud.

 

Think about it.