10,000 scientists, who actually possess and knowledge of the subject? Lie.
You say those 400 scientists we quoted are funded by the oil industry? And you have proof of that or are you telling a lie also?

I challenge either one of you to provide evidence to back up your claims. I do not think you can do it because you simply made them up. That is dishonest. My mother taught me not to do that when I was a very young boy. Your mothers apparently did not. Your dishonest claims and tactics smack of desperation. What you wish were true and what you have tried so hard to support is slowly slipping away and you hate it.

Of course it is all a fabrication. In fact, many of the 400 scientists that dispute Gore’s silliness are members of the groups which supposedly have a “consensus” agreeing with him. Note in the article below that Gore’s claims are in some cases 15 times the IPCC’s numbers. Also, here is a link to the senate report of the 400 (non-oil industry scientists):
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Global Con-sensus
December 21, 2007: 08:05 PM EST
Dec. 24, 2007 (Investor's Business Daily delivered by Newstex) --
Climate Change: A Senate minority report lists 400 reputable scientists who think the only melting ice we should really fear was in the cocktail glasses of attendees at the recent global warming conference in Bali.
In the wake of the Dec. 3-14 conference, where delegates worked to draft a successor to the failed Kyoto Protocol on global warming, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has released a report that lists scientists who challenge both Al Gore's assertion that the debate is over and the Bali conclusion that the planet is in imminent danger.
Many of the 400 scientists have taken part in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose climate change reports tout consensus but which critics charge are heavily edited to support pre-defined conclusions.
Among the IPCC's warming "deniers" is atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, former research director at the Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute.
"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting -- a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number -- entirely without merit," he said. "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: Just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."
Physicist John W. Brosnahan, who develops remote-sensing tools for clients like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, says: "Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling -- all part of the natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years, caused primarily by cyclical variations in solar output."
Brosnahan says he has "not seen any sort of definitive, scientific link to man-made carbon dioxide as the root cause of global warming, only incomplete computer models that suggest that this might be the case." Those models, he says, leave out too many variables.
Indeed, a study in the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology looked at 22 computer models used by the IPCC. Most of the models couldn't even predict the past.
Predictably, after a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 to 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) , though she didn't name which scientists she thinks were bribed to distort the truth. Wise move.
This is not like Al Gore getting 75 hours of free airtime on NBC, a unit of General Electric (NYSE:GE) , which stands to make wads of cash on things like solar panels and wind turbines. Or Gore being involved with a company that sells carbon offsets.
Heartland Institute senior fellow James Taylor has noted that more than 600 scientists at the Bali gathering could have debunked Gore's warming theories, but the U.N. "censored" them.
By the way, Gore and his statist friends in Europe repeatedly have criticized the U.S. for its "failure to act" on warming. But new data show the U.S. in 2006 slashed output of greenhouse gases by 1.3%, while Europe's output continued to grow. So who's failing to act?
Here an idea: How about NBC hosting 75 hours of debate between some of Inhofe's 400 scientists and any one of Gore's choosing, including himself? Afraid of some inconvenient truths, Al?

Did you guys actually READ the three references I posted, especially # 3?

Read all but #3. The link didn't work.

#3: Did I list it wrong?http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/climatechangewebuse.pdf

It is an Adobe file.

I can't get it to work.:confused:

OK...For some reqson it is truncated. THe last part after the word "repwhitepapers" is /climatechangewebuse.pdf.

See if that works

Yes, I tried that already but no luck. The hyperlink only appears truncated, but the properties are:
epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/climatechangewebuse.pdf

finstone,

You like to play sophmoric games instead of actually debating a point. You reduce every subject to semantics or nonsense. You rely on asking other posters to "prove" or substantiate every single word they may post. But does that apply to you also?

If yes, please provide the documentation...date, place, source, etc for what YOU posted to start this thread?

And yes, I fully realize that your first thought will be to say "hey, those are his words not mine" but let's cut that bull***** since YOU posted them per YOUR position. So here you go, and remember: give us name, place, date, source for each of these statements that was in YOUR original post or admit that you are a liar:

"Gore...he's fluent in the international language that translates every wrong into an indictment of Americans." In this one, please concentrate on the word "every" and list the wrongs in alphabetical order?

"Gore's agenda of forcing America to accept a lesser place on the planet." That's a serious charge so please list who reached that conclusion and what are the proven facts that it is based upon and who are the authors?


"the United States will trim its greenhouse gas emissions 15 percent during the next decade..." List the documentation for this conclusion? Studies cited, dates, places, authors, etc.?

"Throwing the nation into an economic tailspin to address a situation we don't yet fully understand would be irresponsible." Again list studies cited, dates, places, authors?

"if Gore and his Bali disciples prevail, growth in the United States and other developed nations will grind to a quick halt" List who, what, where, and by what proven facts was this conclusion reached?

And finstone, please remember to use your own rules where anything that cannot be proven is an intentional lie. Thanx much.

And good luck...we eagerly await your response.;)

Humans having any impact on global warming is a myth. 400 out of 10,000 scientists agree.

You are first that I have ever seen in a single post, post an outright lie, then lie about that lie. Then, to top that, in the same thread, plagiarize someone else (who, it turns out, also lied) and tried to pass their words off as your own.
I cannot image how you have the nerve to even post here...much less attempt to question someone else. Have you no shame?

More gobbleygook from fin....

Why did you not even attempt to validate what you posted to start this thread? Your lack of an attempt speaks volumes.

Gosh, the least I expected was that you would be able to find a verb that wasn't conjugated. SmileWavy

Okay fin,

Let's see if you can attack them one at a time:

"Throwing the nation into an economic tailspin to address a situation we don't yet fully understand would be irresponsible." Again list studies cited, dates, places, authors?

So................................................ ......?

What a troll. Why must you continue to make a fool of yourself? Haven't you been laughed at enough already? Only a fool would ask someone to research the sources in someone else's article...

Incredible. Have you no shame? You posted that as if those were my words although you know they are not. You are so dishonest.

So why do you ask for validation when others make a post. Want some examples of when you;ve done it?

Or do you not believe what you posted to start this thread?

I don't know if you are very stupid or just being a troll...but I will attempt to explain it to you. There is a big difference between making up "facts" and "quotes" like you and some others that post here do...and posting the words of others...that are appropriately sourced. When you post a "quote" or a "fact" that is obviously fabricated...why would you not expect to be called on it? Similarly when you make posts that are exactly the same...word for word...as another writer...why would you not expect to be called for plagiarism?

I see no reason to doubt the facts in the article I posted..nor do I doubt that the parts of his writing that are clearly opinion...are his opinion. If you can find a falsehood in the article, please point it out so we can discuss the validity of your point...or take it up with the author...or both.

Let me try to make this as simple and as dummy-proof as I possibly can:

Do you (fintstone) believe what you posted to start this thread?

Ok. Have it your way. I started this thread with the words: “An excellent read on Al Gore's recent trip to Bali.” Yes, I very much believe it is an excellent read. Don't you?

Well, along with Mr. Finstone, I TOO cannot image how you have the nerve to even post here...on this (Mr. Fintstone's, by YOUR OWN acknowledgement!) thread. You should have more respect rather than hollering SOPHOMORICISM! and GOBBLEYGOOK! and lying about liars telling lies about liars lies and generally being disruptive.

It seems that everyone here agrees that humankind contributes to global warming; some cavalierly waving it off as inconsequential, others adressing it as a serious question (and telling lies and making MILLIONS in the process).

This will not be settled until the bergs and glaciers are finished melting (it's incontrovertible that they are - NO LIE!) and we can measure watermarks on buildings in London, New York City, etc..

So, for the next 5 years, as sea level rises, can't we all just get along? :cool:

Oh yeah, and you're stupid, everyone is laughing at you and you're a troll!

Long ago Adlai Stevenson had a quote that sums it up--just substitue the proper names:;)

"If the Republicans will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them."

The IPCC, the heavyweight that all the global warming guys seem to want to use as the ultimate source on global warming only predicts a sea level rise of less than half a meter...so, do you think that will result in watermarks on buildings in New York City and London...or do you predict a much larger rise?

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 11, 2006; Page A03

Two new scientific studies measuring Greenland's rapidly melting ice sheet and the pace of Antarctic snowfall suggest that the sea level may be rising faster than researchers previously assumed.

The papers, both published yesterday in the journal Science, provide the latest evidence of how climate change is transforming the global landscape. University of Texas at Austin researchers, using twin satellites, determined that the Greenland ice sheet, Earth's second-largest reservoir of fresh water, is melting at three times the rate at which it had been melting over the previous five years. A separate study by 16 international scientists concluded that Antarctic snowfall accumulation has remained steady over the past 50 years, with no increases that might have mitigated the melting of the ice shelf, as some researchers had assumed would occur.

Taken together, the two reports indicate that global sea level rise may increase more rapidly in the coming years, though the Greenland study is based on only 2 1/2 years of data. The melting of 57 cubic miles a year from Greenland's ice sheet could add 0.6 millimeters alone, which is higher than any previously published measurement for Greenland, according to University of Texas Center for Space Research scientist Jianli Chen.

"It's a very big number," Chen said, noting that for at least a hundred years the sea level has increased an average of 1.8 millimeters annually.

I have occasional fits of wild prognostication, gross exaggeration and frustration brought on by attempting to split hairs yet ungrown.

I realize and respect that you are serious and sincere in what you say but balk at your unflagging certitude.

And I would never call you stupid or a troll.

I do suspect, however, that WI wide body is stupid and a troll.

These figures seem to contradict what you posted.


Chapter 10 Global Climate Projections
In all scenarios, the average rate of rise during the 21st century
is very likely to exceed the 1961 to 2003 average rate of 1.8 ± 0.5
mm yr–1 (see Section 5.5.2.1). The central estimate of the rate
of sea level rise during 2090 to 2099 is 3.8 mm yr–1 under A1B,
which exceeds the central estimate of 3.1 mm yr–1 for 1993 to
2003 (see Section 5.5.2.2). The 1993 to 2003 rate may have a
contribution of about 1 mm yr–1 from internally generated or
naturally forced decadal variability (see Sections 5.5.2.4 and
9.5.2).

"troll"..............for what?;)

I suspected that was the case....but was not sure...as Gore's predictions are on that scale.

It appears intuitive that man would have to have some effect on global warming or cooling...but it seems intuitive that it would be insignificant compared to other factors...and short of returning the planet to the stone age...I fail to see how we can change enough to make anything other than a similar, insignificant change. My limited study of the subject does not show a consensus...or even enough data to work with. The voices of learned men have been drowned out those seeking political and financial gain. Current models are clearly inaccurate and will cannot be validated. If you run historical data...they fail to even match known history...so I wait for more information....but it seems clear to me that Gore's work is far beyond believable...

As far as WI...we do agree on something finally...

Please explain.

..

Yes. I don't know of a single significant scientific body that agrees to a sea level rise of anywhere near the magnitude of Gore's prediction. Do you? Since he is not a scientist...one can only wonder why anyone would think his predictions credible.

I do consider myself a serious scientist. (although this is really not my area of expertise)...but I have yet to see any verifiable scientific fact to support Gore's predictions. Have you? In fact, I have seen more scientists that find his "work" quite flawed. Note the 400 scientists in the Senate report linked to on this very thread...his numbers are almost universally refuted... even by champions of global warming such as the IPCC.

This author has an interesting take on the subject:

Gore Sea Levels?
By Dennis Avery

Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth says human-emitted CO2 will boost the earth’s temperatures enough to melt the Arctic ice cap—and suddenly raise sea levels by 20 feet.

Phooey.

First of all, let’s understand just how cold the Antarctic is. Winter temperatures on its high, cold interior plateau range from 40 to 95 degrees F below zero! In the summer (December) it “warms,” with temperatures dipping only to 49 degrees F below zero—and sometimes rising within 25 degrees F of the melting point (32 degrees F). But even then, the ice reflects virtually all of the sun’s rays back out into space.

However, the world’s warming in the past 150 years has produced a change in Antarctica. The huge East Antarctic ice sheet, which contains nearly 90 percent of the world’s ice, has been thickening. European satellites measured the ice sheet’s thickness 347 million times between 1992 and 2003, and found it is gaining about 45 billion tons of water per year because the planet has warmed enough for snow to fall at the coldest place on earth.

The study, “Snowfall-driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-level Rise” was led by Curt Davis of the University of Missouri, and reported in Science on June 24, 2005.

Thickening ice in the Antarctic, in fact, is just about offsetting the meltwater being released from the edges of the Greenland ice sheet—which has also been thickening in its center. This leaves us with a global warming sea level gain of about 1.8 millimeters per year—or 4 inches per century. The rise has remained constant during the 20th century despite the moderate 0.6 degree C warming of the planet.

In the movie, a whole Antarctic ice sheet shatters on Gore’s computer screen. In the real world, that isn’t happening. It is only the Antarctic Peninsula—2 percent of the continent’s land area that sticks up toward the far-off equator—that is warming. It recently earned headlines by calving an ice floe as big as Rhode Island, not an unusual event.

But the East Antarctic ice sheet is more than 2,000 times bigger than Rhode Island, and the ice is two miles thick! John Stone of the University of Washington, reporting in Science on January 3, 2003 says the West Antarctic ice sheet has been retreating so slowly for the past 10,000 years that it still has not fully accommodated the end of the last Ice Age, and apparently still has about 7,000 years of ice to melt—and the East Antarctic ice sheet is melting even more slowly than that.

So. Al Gore says Antarctic melting will suddenly raise the sea levels by 20 feet, and the experts say 4 inches per century. Seth Borenstein, an AP science writer, did a column on June 27 headlined, “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy.” The dean of environmental studies at Duke is quoted as saying “He got all the important material and got it right.”

Were they talking about the same movie I saw? Gore overstated the impact of global warming on the Antarctic glaciers by about 50-fold. Or did he mean that 7000 years was “sudden”? How can so-called scientists applaud his accuracy either way?

"http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsSeaLevelRiseIndex.html"

Any search using the words "GlobalWarming" or "Sea Level Rise" gets you dozens of hits from various organizations

Are you making a specific point here or just providing pointers on using a search engine?:confused:

fin will dissect those stats and figures for you.

As any economic "expert" knows...figures do not lie. (there is another part to that but we will not go into it here);)

What exactly did Gore predict?
Please list some of his scientific predictions per sea level rise and the Gore quote to match what you imply?

I was not aware that you were an "economic expert"...but I do know that people use figures to lie all the time.

You posted that your "figures" contradict my post/position. Could you please illuminate me as to your reasoning...as it is not obvious.

not particularly, and it degenerated when you guys started debating it with Dottore.

Is it t that tough to see that draconian restrictions on carbon output placed upon an essentially carbon based economy like the US will have an adverse impact?

This whole thread sort of sucks, feel like I wasted some time, lucky I read fast.

Oh, BTW, you guys do realize that ALGORE is not a scientist in any way, and has never "proved" anything about anything, right? He just collated a bunch of stuff other guys have done that supported the point he wanted to support so he could sell carbon off sets and gain power with the left.

The Oscar and Nobel prizes were a happy bonus, but were more about making President Bush look bad than anything else, same reason Michael Moore is famous.

fint:

There is enough info on that site alone to answer all your questions, both pro and con. I list it as an aid to those who seem to be hesitant to look things up on their own and get real answers. I can see why you would be "confused" (your smiley!!)

Most of what is posted re: sea level changes is opinion and wishful thinking, both for and against the effects. Low lying areas of the world, according to many clmatologists are extremely sensitive to even a nominal rise. Add to any rise, the effects of storm surge during hurricanes and other tropical events, and the damage can be magnified relative to the damage at lower sea levels.

Over the lifetime of the world, the seas have risen and fallen a number of times, but never when there were as many people as there are now lving close to the world's oceans. That is one of the most critical areas where any increase in storm activity/sea level would impact civilization.

I find the situation interesting, but nothing that will impact me personally. I am just too old to be around when the seas rise (and they will).


The worst case (which in all likelihood would not happen) would entail the melting of all surface (landlocked) ice in Greenland and Anarctica. It is estimated that there are 630,000 cubic miles of landlocked ice in Greenland and 6,000,000 cubic miles in Antarctica. Leaving Anarctica out of the equation for now, and taking into consideration that the oceans of the world comprise 139,000,000 square miles in area, then the melting of one cubic mile of ice would raise an area of the ocean five thousand two hundred and eighty square miles by one foot. 139,000,000/5280 = 26,326, or the number of cubic miles needed to raise the entire ocean by a foot. 63,000 cubic miles/ 26326 = 26.9 feet. Now if one wished to add Anarctica to the equation, there is an estimated 6,000,000 cubic miles of ice down there. So, it would appear that not much melting is required to affect places like, for example, Florida. To be fair, according to NASA, ice pack in central Greenland is growing, but the amount melting is six times the growth.

Just interesting stuff.........

I apologize for you not understanding the figures.

But I also wonder where you get yours from...so let me re-ask a question that you choose to ignore.

"What exactly did Gore predict?
Please list some of his scientific predictions per sea level rise and the Gore quote to match what you imply?"

Thanx.