Gore likens 'global warming' skeptics to racists, supporters of apartheid and homopho

brewmama

brewmama

New member
disturbo said:
Notice how you haven't been hearing much about climate change from the Republicans in the last few years? That's because it has become a real embarrassment to them mostly because of Exxon Mobil.

4-5 years ago Mobil was putting out television ads claiming the scientific data on climate change was flawed. Mobil is now being sued over it by several of these scientist.

Back then the Republicans kept giving one false reason after another why the earth was warming. Their biggest argument was that it was caused by changes in the sun.' So they put it to the test.

IF it were true that warming was caused by 'changes in the sun' then that would mean that the temperatures outside the earth's 'spheres' would also be warmer. Problem is they are actually COOLER. That's because greenhouse gases keep the heat in toward the earth. It doesn't escape as much as it use to.

The world has been studying climate change for almost 20 years now. All of the data acquired by the world's top scientist studying it from satellites, the space shuttle, the ISS, ETC. points to the fact that we ARE impacting the planet.

People can remain in denial for just so long, and then after a while their denial makes them look like an idiot. And this is what has happened to the Republicans over this issue and why they've been silent on the issue lately. They've been lying to Americans about it for two decades fabricating one reason after another why climate change is a hoax and it has finally caught up to them.

A little over one hundred years ago, there were very few smoke stacks. Very few cars and trucks. No jetliners. No asphalt roads or large paved parking lots. And not nearly the amount of rooftops as today. ALL these things create or hold heat. It's really a no brainer that we ARE affecting the planet.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe we are, but CO2 isn't. At least NOT to the extent that some claim. And there's very little we can do about the climate.

Oh, and a lot of the so-called "data" is flawed. Typical of these so-called scientists to sue people that disagree with them.

Temp still correlates better to solar activity than CO2, so why discount it so arbitrarily?
 
gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
brewmama said:
We have been warming since the end of the little ice age, no one is denying that, but many scientists, with good reason, view that as a positive, not catastrophically negative. You don't even know what the other side is saying, do you?



http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2015_v6.png
Click to expand...

Ok. A graph showing a warming trend. And?

brewmama said:
Whatever that is supposed to mean. I'm merely speaking the truth.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/04/paper_its_ok_to_lie_about_climate_change.html
Click to expand...

That is, if you'd bothered to read the paper to find out, an economics paper by economists. And you make the claim it was SCIENTISTS saying that. The paper doesn't even say that - it just describes the behaviour of the media - not even about scientists! Get honest, and stop parroting the rhetorical tricks you object to in others.

As you said in another thread "That’s like a structural engineer writing a biology paper -- the engineer is one smart guy, but he doesn’t really know much about biology. "


brewmama said:
Obviously you didn't bother to read it, it's all your buddy scientists' fear-mongering predictions and scare tactics that have failed abysmally. Scientists own words, which are usually what is posted at WUWT, but of course you wouldn't know that because you prefer to remain in some insulated bubble, where you have no idea what arguments are made against the weak theories of cagwistas, or how their "evidence" is shown to be bunk.

So basically what you play at is not showing any evidence or counterargument, but merely slandering and mocking anyone who disagrees with your little pet theory. I get it.
Click to expand...

You have no idea whether your ad homs are accurate or not, but they are wrong. When the climate change claims started coming up I looked at the data and rejected it as not significant. But over the years it has become much clearer and I have swapped sides. I read Wattsup, as well as other denialist sites, and I am singularly unimpressed by the tactics. Tactics which you repeat here.

So no, you don't "get it" at all.
 
D

disturbo

BANNED
Banned
brewmama said:
Well, maybe we are, but CO2 isn't. At least NOT to the extent that some claim. And there's very little we can do about the climate.

Oh, and a lot of the so-called "data" is flawed. Typical of these so-called scientists to sue people that disagree with them.

Temp still correlates better to solar activity than CO2, so why discount it so arbitrarily?
Click to expand...

The 'solar activity' idea has been DEBUNKED by the scientific data and the Republicans KNOW IT!

It's typical for Republicans to say there's little to nothing they can do about it. I grew up across the Merrimack river from the Bow, NH Power plant in Allenstown NH. My grade and high school friend owns a home across from it. You say there's very little we can do about it. You'll never convince my friend about that! Before they put a scrubber in about 5 years ago, the side of his house facing the plant (about a mile away) would be covered in black soot EVERY WEEK! Similar pollution came from the many paper mills like in Berlin NH (most of them are now gone) where even the high school was covered with a light coating of junk.

My Republican friend was a councilman in Bow NH for several years. He lived in Bow and was against the scrubber. Of course he live up wind from the plant and had no soot or pollution issues. When the town was considering mandatory recycling, he said on a radio interview, (and was clearly proven wrong) "there's really nothing any of us can do to fix the garbage problem". He's no longer a councilman.
 
brewmama

brewmama

New member
disturbo said:
The 'solar activity' idea has been DEBUNKED by the scientific data and the Republicans KNOW IT!

It's typical for Republicans to say there's little to nothing they can do about it. I grew up across the Merrimack river from the Bow, NH Power plant in Allenstown NH. My grade and high school friend owns a home across from it. You say there's very little we can do about it. You'll never convince my friend about that! Before they put a scrubber in about 5 years ago, the side of his house facing the plant (about a mile away) would be covered in black soot EVERY WEEK! Similar pollution came from the many paper mills like in Berlin NH (most of them are now gone) where even the high school was covered with a light coating of junk.

My Republican friend was a councilman in Bow NH for several years. He lived in Bow and was against the scrubber. Of course he live up wind from the plant and had no soot or pollution issues. When the town was considering mandatory recycling, he said on a radio interview, (and was clearly proven wrong) "there's really nothing any of us can do to fix the garbage problem". He's no longer a councilman.
Click to expand...

Conflating pollution with CO2/global warming, how typical! If you can't stick to the facts about CAGW, but rail off into soot and pollution, you've already lost.

And no, the solar activity theory has NOT been disproved, it is becoming more prominent as it continues to correlate.
 
D

disturbo

BANNED
Banned
brewmama said:
Conflating pollution with CO2/global warming, how typical! If you can't stick to the facts about CAGW, but rail off into soot and pollution, you've already lost.

And no, the solar activity theory has NOT been disproved, it is becoming more prominent as it continues to correlate.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect any better of a reply from a right winger in denial.

Here's the facts. And I repeat!

IF...

Global warming was caused by changes in solar activity, then that means that the data (temperature) acquired by satellites and the ISS 'OUTSIDE OF THE EARTH'S SPHERES' should also be warmer than they were say 15 years ago. Problem is they are actually cooler! THEY ARE cooler because the earth doesn't release that heat. More of it is now trapped in toward the earth. It's actually quite elementary.
 
brewmama

brewmama

New member
disturbo said:
I wouldn't expect any better of a reply from a right winger in denial.

Here's the facts. And I repeat!

IF...

Global warming was caused by changes in solar activity, then that means that the data (temperature) acquired by satellites and the ISS 'OUTSIDE OF THE EARTH'S SPHERES' should also be warmer than they were say 15 years ago. Problem is they are actually cooler! THEY ARE cooler because the earth doesn't release that heat. More of it is now trapped in toward the earth. It's actually quite elementary.
Click to expand...

Two new papers suggest solar activity is a ‘climate pacemaker’

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/09/two-new-papers-suggest-solar-activity-is-a-climate-pacemaker/
 
gcthomas

gcthomas

New member
brewmama said:
Two new papers suggest solar activity is a ‘climate pacemaker’

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/09/two-new-papers-suggest-solar-activity-is-a-climate-pacemaker/
Click to expand...

Didn't you read them? They describe an intermittent solar forcing pattern at the rate of one cycle per year, interspersed with 'climate shifts' unrelated to the solar forcing cycle.

One cycle per year! Hardly a new climate change model, and not presented as such. It is presented as part of the explanation for the El Nińo cycle though, but that can't be what you were hoping for.

If you want to disprove the carbon models, you'll have to do better than just unquestionably repost Wattsup advocacy.
 
brewmama

brewmama

New member
gcthomas said:
Didn't you read them? They describe an intermittent solar forcing pattern at the rate of one cycle per year, interspersed with 'climate shifts' unrelated to the solar forcing cycle.

One cycle per year! Hardly a new climate change model, and not presented as such. It is presented as part of the explanation for the El Nińo cycle though, but that can't be what you were hoping for.

If you want to disprove the carbon models, you'll have to do better than just unquestionably repost Wattsup advocacy.
Click to expand...

Yet there is no evidence that CO2 has much forcing ability, and other factors are routinely left out of their (usually wrong) models.
 
brewmama

brewmama

New member
"Changes in solar activity have previously been proposed to cause decadal- to millennial-scale fluctuations in both the modern and Holocene climates1. Direct observational records of solar activity, such as sunspot numbers, exist for only the past few hundred years, so solar variability for earlier periods is typically reconstructed from measurements of cosmogenic radionuclides such as 10Be and 14C from ice cores and tree rings2, 3. Here we present a high-resolution 10Be record from the ice core collected from central Greenland by the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP). The record spans from 22,500 to 10,000 years ago, and is based on new and compiled data4, 5, 6. Using 14C records7, 8 to control for climate-related influences on 10Be deposition, we reconstruct centennial changes in solar activity. We find that during the Last Glacial Maximum, solar minima correlate with more negative δ18O values of ice and are accompanied by increased snow accumulation and sea-salt input over central Greenland. We suggest that solar minima could have induced changes in the stratosphere that favour the development of high-pressure blocking systems located to the south of Greenland, as has been found in observations and model simulations for recent climate9, 10. We conclude that the mechanism behind solar forcing of regional climate change may have been similar under both modern and Last Glacial Maximum climate conditions."

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n9/full/ngeo2225.html
 
brewmama

brewmama

New member
Hot on the heels of the Lewis and Curry paper, we have this new paper, which looks to be well researched, empirically based, and a potential blockbuster for dimming the alarmism that has been so prevalent over climate sensitivity. With a climate sensitivity of just 0.43°C, it takes the air out of the alarmism balloon.

The Hockey Schtick writes: A new paper published in the Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change by renowned professor of physics and expert on spectroscopy Dr. Hermann Harde finds that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels is only about [0.6C], about 7 times less than the IPCC claims, but in line with many other published low estimates of climate sensitivity.

The paper further establishes that climate sensitivity to tiny changes in solar activity is comparable to that of CO2 and by no means insignificant as the IPCC prefers to claim.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/...ng-there-is-no-global-warming-crisis-at-hand/
 
D

disturbo

BANNED
Banned
brewmama said:
"Changes in solar activity have previously been proposed to cause decadal- to millennial-scale fluctuations in both the modern and Holocene climates1. Direct observational records of solar activity, such as sunspot numbers, exist for only the past few hundred years, so solar variability for earlier periods is typically reconstructed from measurements of cosmogenic radionuclides such as 10Be and 14C from ice cores and tree rings2, 3. Here we present a high-resolution 10Be record from the ice core collected from central Greenland by the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP). The record spans from 22,500 to 10,000 years ago, and is based on new and compiled data4, 5, 6. Using 14C records7, 8 to control for climate-related influences on 10Be deposition, we reconstruct centennial changes in solar activity. We find that during the Last Glacial Maximum, solar minima correlate with more negative δ18O values of ice and are accompanied by increased snow accumulation and sea-salt input over central Greenland. We suggest that solar minima could have induced changes in the stratosphere that favour the development of high-pressure blocking systems located to the south of Greenland, as has been found in observations and model simulations for recent climate9, 10. We conclude that the mechanism behind solar forcing of regional climate change may have been similar under both modern and Last Glacial Maximum climate conditions."

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n9/full/ngeo2225.html
Click to expand...

Keep searching. You'll eventually find something that makes sense even if it isn't true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top