President Trump Says He’s Too Intelligent To Believe In Climate Change The government’s own climate report predicts the planet will warm dramatically by 2100 without urgent efforts to rein in emissions. Trump responds, “I don’t see it.” https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-climate-change-denial_us_5bfde067e4b0d23c21379349
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/m...ame-year-al-gore-predicted-it-would-disappear This article chronicles the incorrect predictions Al Gore made about arctic ice melting. https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 This is an excerpt from an article written in 1989: A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature This link shows that temperatures spiked in 1998. Over the next decade, 9 of the next 10 years had lower temperatures. Over this timespan, I saw significant shift from the term "global warming" to the term "climate change." I don't have any data to back that up. That's just my opinion based off what I've heard. I'm not trying to claim that every single prediction about global warming has been wrong. You can find someone predicting just about every single scenario possible. So someone is destined to be right. But at the same time, you have to admit that many of the outlandish claims have been proven to be false.
Nobody is arguing about the properties co2 has. NASA has done experiments showing that CO2 also shields the earth from heat. The issue is that we have a complex system with a great deal of negative feedbacks. We also see that CO2 levels trail ocean warming and cooling. We also know that water vapor and clouds are most likely far more impactful than CO2. (all of this is found when you read the peer reviewed science... much of which has been presented here) So the question is how much if any impact does man made co2 have? So far there is no science showing it to have any impact on our temperatures. (outside of some failed models.) You are welcome to search the literature yourself and let us know if you find any science stating man made co2 is causing warming.
So, to be clear, you think that literally every expert, science org, The Weather Channel Exxon Mobil etc.....are all wrong or lying. They are all saying that it is certainly due to man. That's because there is tons of proof. That's why they all say that man is doing it. Do I need to post, again, the statements from the science orgs and the polls of the climate scientists etc? OK, here's a sample American Geophysical Union "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." American Meteorological Society "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7 and there are hundreds more. You think that all the experts and scientists and The Weather Channel and Exxon are wrong? Note the part where they say it's due to man. ******* Oh, and jerm, just shut the fuck up and take your meds you lying sack of shit.
You literally have over a thousand skeptical papers... and not one peer reviewed paper stating man made co2 causes warming. Science is about science. Consensus is propaganda... its not real, its no science. We have given you lists of dozens of skeptical scientists. Some of them published climate scientists taking a skeptical position with respect to man made co2. You lie your ass off everytime you deny that. Besides its not about the scientists...its about the science. You have none which shows man made co2 causes warming.
Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate? Link to this page What the science says... Select a level... Basic Intermediate Al Gore's film was "broadly accurate" according to an expert witness called when an attempt was made through the courts to prevent the film being shown in schools. Climate Myth... Al Gore got it wrong “Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, was […] criticised by a high court judge who highlighted what he said were "nine scientific errors" in the film. Mr Justice Barton yesterday said that while the film was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of climate change, he identified nine significant errors in the film, some of which, he said, had arisen in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration" to support the former US vice-president's views on climate change.” (The Guardian) Al Gore, certainly the most vilified proponent of climate change anywhere in the world, earned most of this enmity through the success of a film he presented called An Inconvenient Truth (AIT). The film was a staid presentation of climate science to date, a round-up of research, science and projections, with many cinematic sequences employed to harness the power of the medium. The majority of the film, covering issues like Himalayan Glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica losing ice, the severity of hurricanes and other weather phenomena, was accurate and represented the science as it stood. Since the release of the film, considerably more evidence has been found in support of the science and projections in the film. One claim was in error, as was one attribution of a graph. The error was in the claim that climate change had caused the shrinking of Mount Kilimanjaro, although the evidence that the shrinkage was most likely caused by deforestation did not appear until after the film was made. The error of attribution was in reference to a graph of temperature and attributes it mistakenly to a Dr. Thompson, when it was actually a combination of Mann’s hockey stick and CRU surface temperature data. The Legal Case The film is also subject to attack on the grounds that Al Gore was prosecuted in the UK and a judge found many errors in the film. This is untrue. The case, heard in the civil court, was brought by a school governor against the Secretary of State for Education, in an attempt to prevent the film being distributed to schools. Mr. Justice Burton, in his judgement, ordered that teaching notes accompanying the film should be modified to clarify the speculative (and occasionally hyperbolic) presentation of some issues. Mr. Justice Burton found no errors at all in the science. In his written judgement, the word error appears in quotes each time it is used – nine points formed the entirety of his judgement - indicating that he did not support the assertion the points were erroneous. About the film in general, he said this: 17. I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear: i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. 22. I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate." The judge did identify statements that had political implications he felt needed qualification in the guidance notes for teachers, and ordered that both qualifications on the science and the political implications should be included in the notes. Al Gore was not involved in the case, was not prosecuted, and because the trial was not a criminal case, there was no jury, and no guilty verdict was handed down. Note: the vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation. When opponents attack something abstract - like science - the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics - being a rich politician, for example - it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame. Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne Last updated on 7 January 2014 by Bob Lacatena. View Archives