Leading Global Warming Skeptic changes mind after watching Al Gore Speak

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Originally Posted by Mazer

It's Easter and it's snowing like it's Christmas. Temperatures in Hawaii have reached record lows. How does that figure?

Originally Posted by albed

About 20*F colder than normal for the last 2 weeks where I live. I'm not saying it's because of global cooling but this is the coldest spring I remember.

Funny that it just appears as a testament to your self-centered short-sightedness and a willful ignorance about what the effects of global warming could actually be to argue it based on local cold weather.

Hello. Global Warming 101. Enough cold fresh water flowing into the North Atlantic (a basic ramification of global warming) could cause changes in the gulf stream and other ocean currents which keep North America and Europe relatively warm and would lead to a disruption of weather patterns and, ultimately, the seasons themselves. Global warming would actually mean freakish weather and an increasingly cold climate.

You might try to grasp this basic concept before pretending to be incredulous experts.

[Sinner]

NASA researchers used computer simulation models to analyze observed temperature changes on Mars over time.The model showed that the surface temperature of Mars has increased by about 1.17 degrees Fahrenheit over two decades. Mars’ southern polar ice caps are melting.

I think it is Bush's fault. Maybe there is a chance it is Al Gore's since he uses 20 times more energy then the average American.

[albed]

Wow, observing the weather makes people "incredulous experts" to Ramona!


I always laughed when I read or heard the global warming proselytizers try to convince people that colder weather might be caused by....global warming. How weak minded do people have to be to believe that?

About as much as Ramona apparently.


They've got it all covered: drought-global warming, floods-global warming, heat wave-global warming, and now; cold wave-global warming. Just a test of faith and the willingness to mindlessly accept the dogma.

Ramona passes.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

Funny that it just appears as a testament to your self-centered short-sightedness and a willful ignorance about what the effects of global warming could actually be to argue it based on local cold weather.

Hello. Global Warming 101. Enough cold fresh water flowing into the North Atlantic (a basic ramification of global warming) could cause changes in the gulf stream and other ocean currents which keep North America and Europe relatively warm and would lead to a disruption of weather patterns and, ultimately, the seasons themselves. Global warming would actually mean freakish weather and an increasingly cold climate.

You might try to grasp this basic concept before pretending to be incredulous experts.

I'm well aware of the thermohaline cycle and the effects of global warming upon it, and I can explain it much better than Al Gore did in his documentary; his explanation was overly simplistic. (Lord, I hope you're not basing your explanation on that Roland Emmerich movie. ) You're mistaking informed skepticism on my part (and maybe albed's) for willful ignorance. Are you doing it on purpose? It's true I'm known to shoot from the hip when I don't have all the information, but do you actually believe that I've consciously chosen to avoid the available data on global warming? You know better than to make that assumption.

My own observations of local weather, though circumstantial, are valid: they highlight the inability of computer models to accurately predict precipitation and cloud cover more than a week in advance. The main concern over global warming stems from anticipated changes to the hydrologic cycle, mainly the various positive and negative feedback loops that occur when increased temperatures accelerate ocean surface evaporation. Water vapor, depending on what phase it takes on in the air, is either the most potent greenhouse gas or the best sunlight deflector on Earth. As water vapor concentrations increase, the greenhouse effect will strengthen while the amount of sunlight reaching the earth decreases. So far it is unknown whether these two effects will cancel each other out and to what degree, and computer models are of no help because they're terrible at simulating the hydrologic cycle.

The models that meteorologists use to predict local weather are related to the models climatologists use to predict regional and global climate change, and they suffer the same limitations. You can tell that a particular global climate model is deeply flawed when it inaccurately predicts precipitation rates around the world, and most of today's models do not agree with actual observations, let alone each other. Though climate models are becoming more complex and more accurate every year, they still cannot reliably predict changes to our climate more than a few years in advance.

It isn't global warming I'm skeptical of, it's the idea that policy should be based on the results of these flawed climate models. Reducing carbon emissions isn't as easy as screwing in a compact fluorescent light bulb, you know. The AGW alarmists would have us all make drastic changes to our lifestyles and keep developing nations living in the stone age.

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Originally Posted by albed

Wow, observing the weather makes people "incredulous experts" to Ramona!

Uhm, no. You were not merely observing the weather, you were attempting, however lamely, to use your observations of the weather to deride an idea which you clearly have chosen 'not to believe in,' and you seem to think that because it's been 20 degrees colder than usual where you live lately, you can make a mockery of the concept of global warming.

Saying "now cold wave-global warming" as if it's something thought of last week during an unseasonably cool evening implies you know little about even the most general theories of climate change, because the concept that erratic weather, global cooling, and indeed 'another ice age' could be the ultimate result of global warming has been ubiquitously inherent to them for decades. Also inherent to them is the idea that micro-anomalies are quite meaningless, indeed changes over decades and even centuries can be quite meaningless, and there simply isn't enough data to draw firm conclusions. One certainly isn't going to insist that every local flood, drought or cold snap is evidence of anything.

But then I'm not the one using micro-anomalies to try to make a point, am I?

Nope.

[albed]

I don't "choose" to believe or disbelieve, the evidence and rationale either convinces me or doesn't.

Frankly the evidence has been very questionable and I've observed the rationale mutate over the years to become more acceptable to potential converts. Even the name "global warming" is being altered to "climate change" to make it more indistinct and less disprovable.

Now, no matter what happens to the climate, the global warming dogma will have predicted it and predetermined it's cause; mankinds activity. So the faithful will have no reason to doubt and leave the fold.

But still; "global cooling can be caused by global warming" just seems too irrational for even the most ignorant and gullible to accept.

[Ramona_A_Stone]

I ask myself what I could possibly say to make the scope of your ignorance more obvious and realize A: I could never compete with you yourself because you work so hard at it preserving it, and B: half a squirrel neuron in a petri dish of gelatin would surely get it anyway.

[albed]

I'm so glad you found your intellectual equal. Enjoy conversing with it.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

Saying "now cold wave-global warming" as if it's something thought of last week during an unseasonably cool evening implies you know little about even the most general theories of climate change, because the concept that erratic weather, global cooling, and indeed 'another ice age' could be the ultimate result of global warming has been ubiquitously inherent to them for decades.

True, in fact that idea was so ubiquitous decades ago that everyone thought an ice age was already beginning. It never occurred to anybody that the mid-century cooling trend would end and temperatures would rebound by more than a degree celsius before the end of the century. The predictions have changed, but the alarmism hasn't subsided.

Also inherent to them is the idea that micro-anomalies are quite meaningless, indeed changes over decades and even centuries can be quite meaningless, and there simply isn't enough data to draw firm conclusions. One certainly isn't going to insist that every local flood, drought or cold snap is evidence of anything.

But then I'm not the one using micro-anomalies to try to make a point, am I?

Nobody has tried to make that point. We're observing that this winter has lasted ten weeks longer than Punxsutawney Phill predicted. Two extra months of relatively cold weather is anomalous but notable because nobody anticipated it, to my knowledge. Maybe other groundhogs got it right, in which case their word is more reliable than any climatologist's.

[Mazer]

I watched An Inconvenient Truth last year after downloading it (I didn't feel the need to pay to see it) and I though it was well made, well reasoned, and optimistic about humanity's ability to fix global problems. But Gore skimmed over most of the science in his slide show and focused more on drama. Al Gore is an alarmist, by definition, and alarmism has come to exemplify the issue of anthropogenic global warming. So where's the science?

I came across this documentary in two parts today that discusses many of the points made in Gore's documentary as well as this year's IPCC report. The science simply does not support pessimism, and in many cases it doesn't support any moral conclusions at all, and that's what this video makes clear. It is a speech given by Dr. Steven Hayward, a scientist who for the past twelve years has compiled an annual report on environmental issues, the Index of Leading Environmental Indicators. His studies have highlighted all the improvements our civilization has made to the environment as well as the areas where more improvement is still needed. This is the man with his hand on the pulse of environmental science.

This documentary shows that the so called 'scientific consensus' on global warming is anything but. There is conflicting and sometimes contradictory evidence in the field of global climate, but mostly there's just a lot of uncertainty. So be wary of any person who tells you that the science is settled and the debate is closed, study the science yourself and find your own conclusions.

An Inconvenient Truth... or Convenient Fiction?
Part 1
Part 2

Edit: A copy of the Index of Leading Environmental Indicators, Twelfth Edition is available here (PDF, 3.3MB) from the Pacific Research Institute for those interested in reading some good news about the environment for a change.

[albed]

John Kerry follows in Al Gore's footsteps.

With the release of his book: "This Moment on Earth: Today's New Environmentalists and Their Vision for the Future" Kerry got the same hypocrisy check of his energy consumption that Gore got, with the same result; another energy pig.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics....20070416a.html

As Sen. John Kerry promotes his new book on the dangers of global warming, he's been running up an average electric bill of $1,100 a month

No real surprise and it's trivial compared to his constant fuel guzzling jet travel but it once again highlights the hypocrisy of the preachers of the worlds new religion and raises the question; do they really believe in what they're promoting or are they just using the rhetoric to manipulate the masses and increase their political power?

[Nicobie]

Originally Posted by albed

preachers of the worlds new religion and raises the question; do they really believe in what they're promoting or are they just using the rhetoric to manipulate the masses and increase their political power?

Well, what do U think, more godshit?

Sounds like a religion to me...