Leading Global Warming Skeptic changes mind after watching Al Gore Speak

[albed]

You're almost as bad claiming nobody knows something when they do as you are claiming you know something when you don't. When are you going to stop your pretentious proclamations and adopt a standard of ethics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory

Dynamo theory describes the process through which motion of a conductive body in the presence of a magnetic field acts to regenerate that magnetic field. This theory is used to explain the presence of anomalously long-lived magnetic fields in astrophysical bodies.

In the case of the Earth, the magnetic field is believed to be caused by the convection of molten iron, within the outer liquid core, along with a Coriolis effect caused by the overall planetary rotation that tends to organize currents in rolls aligned along the north-south polar axis.

I recently watch a lecture on mass extinction events with a sidenote that a low angular cometary impact could spin the crust/mantle in relation to the core and shear off the convection currents that produce the magnetic field resulting in a period of low field strength and geologic evidence indicate just that scenario once occurred.

[RDixon]

Theory: Unproven. Could be true, but also may not be.



Everything you think you know is wrong.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by albed

You're almost as bad claiming nobody knows something when they do as you are claiming you know something when you don't. When are you going to stop your pretentious proclamations and adopt a standard of ethics?

So what you're saying is that someone knows exactly what's going on and that future changes in the earth's magnetic field are readily predictable? You'd be the first to make that claim.

[albed]

Well I guess nobody knows why the weather changes then.

[Mazer]

We call these systems chaotic because they cannot be predicted with certainty beyond a short time span and because they are acted upon by variables that we are not aware of. Nobody knows why we had such a violent hurricane season two years ago followed by such a tame season last year. It's impossible to predict whether a storm forming off the cost of Africa will eventually destroy New Orleans, let alone what a whole hurricane season will be like. I think it's safe to say we really don't understand the weather. In all likelihood we will understand it eventually, but today the best we can do is hire glorified bookies to quote statistical probabilities.

[floydian slip]

Al Gore invented weather.

[albed]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Nobody knows why we had such a violent hurricane season two years ago followed by such a tame season last year.

You just can't stop yourself can you?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_At...rricane_season

in 2006, a rapidly-forming El Niño event, combined with the pervasive presence of the Saharan Air Layer over the tropical Atlantic and a steady presence of a robust secondary high related to the Azores high centered around Bermuda, contributed to a slow season and all tropical cyclone activity ceasing after October 2.

[Drakonix]

it has never been a matter of science.

That is very true. But the problem is that global warming (or lack thereof) is a scientific issue. The “proof” for global warming is being touted as scientifically proven fact when it is not.

I don't think we should knowingly do things that have strongly negative environmental impact.

Similarly, I do not think junk science disinformation should be allowed to set public policies, especially when the result is to stifle development and injure the economy. For example, environmental concerns are the main reason the U.S. can’t produce enough domestic oil and this in turn results on dependance upon foreign oil. Dependance on foreign oil (from the middle east) helps fund the jihad terrorism against us.

In 2005, fifteen hurricanes formed and a number of them made landfall, some causing horrendous damage. We listened to the global warming activists tell us in 2005 that more of the same was to come with severe hurricanes becoming more frequent and more powerful.

The real world experience did not verify the "doom-and-gloom" preaching. The 2006 hurricane season yielded only six hurricanes, NONE of which made landfall in the U.S..

Another indicator global warming activists tout is diminishing volume of polar ice. Some of the information in this area is contradictory. There is apparently scientific evidence that the antarctic ice is actually growing, not diminishing.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V9/N45/C2.jsp

Or, how about The Weather Channel (TWC) "climate expert" Dr. Heidi Cullen, who wants the American Meteorological Society to de-certify any broadcast meteorologist who fails to beat the "catastrophic global warming is caused by human activity" drum.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...a-88824bb8e528

Junk science is not real science. Scepticism and making a scientific theory stand up to it is a normal, healthy and necessary part of the scientific process. It is supposed to prevent junk science from being adopted as scientifically supported fact.

The lack of tolerance for alternate viewpoints that is being expressed could probably be described as scientific evidence that they are not being scientific.

As such, the theory itself comes under serious question as to its validity.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by albed

You just can't stop yourself can you?

Let me rephrase (or backpedal, whichever the case may be): After such a violent hurricane season in 2005 nobody at the time could have predicted that the 2006 season would be so tame.

[albed]

I'm relatively sure that with thousands of meteorologists studying various data and forming different conclusions that one or more did predict a mild 2006 hurricane season.



But you're just steering away from your compulsion to make proclamations based on ignorance. People know what causes geomagnetic fields and many other things even if you don't.