how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[westwall]

It's painfully clear that deniers are not educated enough to understand that they have nothing to stand on. They have bet on the wrong horse simply because he was, they thought, cheaper. Wrong on all counts. Wrong on the science, wrong on the economics, wrong on the path forward.

I don't know when the last flat earther died, perhaps he hasn't yet, but those who think that science can be manipulated to support their personal agendas always lose. Mankind doesn't invent truth, they learn it. The universe simply doesn't care what humanity wants.

Investors understand and those who are placing their bets now are betting on sustainable. There are still more politics to be applied to getting those who got wealthy from fossil fuels to pay all of their own bills rather than dump them on the taxpayers. But as the republican party has chosen extinction over adaption the noise will die away pretty quickly.

And, "An Inconvenient Truth", will be regarded by history as the prescient work that it was.

Prescient? Really? 9 SIGNIFICANT ERRORS OF FACT, 35 lesser errors of fact and you claim it is prescient? Then you insult those of us with real education to back up our observations? You ignorant little twerp go back to your moms basement.

You took the harder target that time with Al GOre.. Me personally, I'd would have gone for the

The universe simply doesn't care what humanity wants. Investors understand and those who are placing their bets now are betting on sustainable.

By posting the 10 yr sector stocks for wind and solar.. But I'm pretty bored with these clones.

Oh, dear old Al is an easy target too. But I'm with you on the same old BS train. They really do have nothing. It's quite sad actually. I went to a global warming "discussion" recently at WNC and they had Dettinger as the guest of honor and Brown as his screener, they had a sheriffs deputy at the door, and no questions from the audiience were allowed you had to write your questions out and then Brown could edit the question to suit him.

Naturally I wrote a very specific question that I could identify as mine due to the specific nature of the question, and it was edited down to "what does the Antarctic ice cap tell us?"

They were playing to a bunch of friends (mainly, the whole front half was friends and family) and STILL they had to resort to that sort of non-scientific bullshit.

Dettinger was repeating the same old storylines with nothing new, just correlation equals causation and he actually had modified one of the newer graphs to hide the flat temps of the last 15 years.

Sad and pathetic.

 

[itfitzme]

All you need to know is:

1) I am here for 2 reasons.. To LEARN * and To dispell Bullshit scientific pronouncents and misrepresentations of technology to consumers. That's a MORAL obligation I have to preserve the independence and honesty of science and technology..*

2) This is NOT a game to me. I take it as seriously as my REAL work.

3) I have the patience of a saint when folks want to actually discuss the topic.. I quickly get sketchy and edgey when anyone attempts to assert tons of crap and doesn't defend it or respond to my questions..*

So -- I'm over in Energy trying to dispell the myth that E. Musk's EV charging stations are "solar powered". And how it's just WONDERFUL if you can charge one EV in 20 minutes using the equivalent electrical power of 2 or 3 subdivisions full of houses to do it.

Also exposing the Govt propagated myth about the efficiencies of incandescent bulbs.*

People have actually decided that Bullshit tastes good. An they have a huge appetite for this "spin" and agiprop.. My goal is like Michelle Obama's -- to get America back on an Arugulla diet with less sugar and rat crap....

Which would be all great, if it had any bearing on reality. *You've created some mythical
antcedant in your own mind, that you regail against endessly.

I need go no further than "I quickly get sketchy and edgey when anyone attempts to assert tons of crap " to ask the simple question, "what, or who, are you talking about?"

See.. I gave you the 4 reasons I'm here.. And the next thing you do is ask me stuff that's not part of the 4 motivations that I gave you..*

You should really take me literally and learn the BASICS of effective, civil conversation.... When you get that part.. We can try science and technology again...

Bullshit. *

Global climate change has nothing to do with what's got your panties all in a bunch. *

It starts here;

-----

Sweeping generalization;

.. when oppressive government and religious systems prevent the people from engaging in free market systems that have solved issues of food, water, transportation, health."

Specific details;

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/lighting/cfls/downloads/EISA_Backgrounder_FINAL_4-11_EPA.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr6enr.pdf

And you jump in to create some imaginary enemy

*You LIKE CORPORATE WELFARE??? *To each his own..*

-----
Which we get down to whats really got you ticked off.

And Medicare killed my Dad twice.. Once on paper -- a feat that it took a Congressman and 2 months of my life to fix. And then for real when they wouldn't authorize anesthesia for a procedure. That makes us approximately squared off i reckon..*

---

BTW: Medicare rules PROHIBITED ME or HIM from paying for the anesthesia portion of the procedure. If you're gonna get your gonads microwaved by the govt, you only get LOCAL anesthesia. No amount of SAVINGS or Recourse could fix that problem. Literally sentenced him to death for lack of CHOICE or FLEXIBILITY.....

---

So you start some stupid word arguement

LOL, the theory is that GH gases absorb and re-emit IR energy. If it's "reflecting" now it's whole other situation isn't it..

----

And I ask;

So what is the differences between reflection, refraction, and difraction at an atomic level?

After four pages of posts, you've drive clear off the road with;

Here's what that cancellation looks like with laser light after a lens works on the phases. That optical computing stuff is amazing. You are looking at the spatial frequencies of some crystal lattice illuminated by a flat field of laser light and then focused with a lens.. At the focal point you can measure all of the vital geometry of that crystal.. The spatial distances between molecules in any direction. Working in that field gave me an unfair advantage in thinking between frequency domains and time or space domains. And the BEAUTY of this simple method was amazing.. ((That''s all a FOUR BEER topic))

-----

And your imagery is full of

*being a suspect and getting interrogated.. I've got my govt to that...

----

Why don't you go back a few pages and try to hurt me

---

Respond CAREFULLY -- my anger about losing my Civil Liberties and my country is making me more NEG today than usual....

----

You're just trying desperately to distract youself from what's really got you pissed off. *

You're pissed off because your dad died. You blame it on the anestesiogist, the anesthesia, and Medicare.

You got angry, threatened someone, and were either hospitalized or otherwise incarcerated.

You can't fix it. You blame yourself. *You blame others. You can't deal with your own self blame. You can't get back at anyone else. *So now you look for fights to pick over global climate change so you can do something with all that anger that is just bursting out you. *

Bullshit.

And the sad thing is it's even deeper than that. *Medicare is just a proxy for deeper issues. *Your dad depended on them, they hurt him. *You depended on your dad, he hurt you. You hurt him. You hurt yourself by allowing yourself to be hurt. *You allowed Medicare to hurt your dad. *You depended on Medicare hate depending on them...

It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. *Anyone that has taken an English lit class can.

Sometimes people are too smart for their own good.

Stop and look around the room, once aften year of pounding a keyboard. You could go anywhere on the net and you choose this. *You could be looking at pictures of galaxies, a bazar in Iran, studying fish, anything, and you choose ^ that. Up there, ^, "hurt", "anger", "interrogated", "losing my civil liberties", ....

YOUR AT A COMPUTER READING WORDS ON A SCREEN. *THERE IS NOBODY BUT YOU AND A COMPUTER. *IT'S THAT SIMPLE. WHAT DON'T YOU GET?

 

[flacaltenn]

Precious Melt-Down/Hissy Fit.. That one goes into the archives..

I didn't "drive it off the road".. The significance of that optical computing observation simply whizzed by WAAAAAY over your head. It was intended for GSlack and IANC -- because they were discussing photon collisions and phase cancellations.. My you are instable..

Does that mean you're not working on showing me that the warming from CO2 ALONE without the feedbacks, without a wide Climate Sensitivity range, without any of those things that the theory injects --- is EXACTLY what the projected temperatures from the AGW elite have been?


I thought you were doing SUMTHIN productive..

 

[flacaltenn]

Prescient? Really? 9 SIGNIFICANT ERRORS OF FACT, 35 lesser errors of fact and you claim it is prescient? Then you insult those of us with real education to back up our observations? You ignorant little twerp go back to your moms basement.

You took the harder target that time with Al GOre.. Me personally, I'd would have gone for the

The universe simply doesn't care what humanity wants. Investors understand and those who are placing their bets now are betting on sustainable.

By posting the 10 yr sector stocks for wind and solar.. But I'm pretty bored with these clones.

Oh, dear old Al is an easy target too. But I'm with you on the same old BS train. They really do have nothing. It's quite sad actually. I went to a global warming "discussion" recently at WNC and they had Dettinger as the guest of honor and Brown as his screener, they had a sheriffs deputy at the door, and no questions from the audiience were allowed you had to write your questions out and then Brown could edit the question to suit him.

Naturally I wrote a very specific question that I could identify as mine due to the specific nature of the question, and it was edited down to "what does the Antarctic ice cap tell us?"

They were playing to a bunch of friends (mainly, the whole front half was friends and family) and STILL they had to resort to that sort of non-scientific bullshit.

Dettinger was repeating the same old storylines with nothing new, just correlation equals causation and he actually had modified one of the newer graphs to hide the flat temps of the last 15 years.

Sad and pathetic.

WNC as in Nevada? Boy they get the top road shows don't they? We haven't seen the muzzling and retail sale of science like that since Kepler and Gallileo..

Al Gore vs Lord Monckton.. Extreme fighting rules. Las Vegas baby.. No seconds or handlers. To the death grudge match.. No one under 16 admitted. No science prereqs.

Speaking of Sad and pathetic. We've got a clean-up on aisle 6.. Short circuit -- full melt-down..

 

[PMZ]

I WUV YU, YU WUV ME, We're a happy family...*

1) Climate sensitivity Numbers
2) CO2 Forcing Function (log nature)
3) FEEDBACK mechanisms..*

Sorry Johnny --- I've got to give you an "F"...*

No discussion of the REAL climate drivers in YOUR AGW theory. And an apparent assumption that the models are predicting temp rise based SOLELY on CO2 in the atmosphere WITHOUT the 3 things I listed above. In TRUTH --- YOUR AGW theory is a lot more complicated than you state (there are mORE than 3 complications) and requires you to believe that a 2degC change in surface forcing FROM ANY CAUSE --- would set off a chain of catastrophic feedbacks resulting in 1000 plagues. Bummer eh? The planet you live on is a suicidal bomb...*

The effect from CO2 ALONE ---- would make this whole issue --- a literal snooze.. Before you ARGUE that point with me --- I suggest you work a bit. To AVOID my itchy trigger finger this week...

Ergo, there has been no rise in CO2 global mean temperature...

Are you working on this chance to embarrass and defeat me??? Please feel free to work with the other 1/10 of your brain PMZ and produce for us both the warming projected SOLELY FROM CO2 and the wild claims made by the IPCC, the model butchers, and all your heroes including Al Gore..

Here's a hint --- Even AL GORE knows that the temp rise due to CO2 alone is not hysterical enough "to play on your FEARS"......

Quit scratching your ass, talk to your sock or clone and do some work...

Let's start with what we apparently agree on.

1) The more greenhouse gas molecules that there are in the atmosphere the more longwave radiation into space is reduced. However there is no effect on the incoming shortwave solar radiation.

2) Any body in a vacuum can only be affected by radiant energy. There are no other thermodynamic effects possible through a vacuum.

3) if a body in a vacuum receives radiant energy, it will rise in temperature until it radiates the same amount of energy away.

Do you agree so far? If not, what is your different understanding for these situations?

 

[PMZ]

Clearly, most who post here know everything and have no need for learning.

However, in the off chance that someone wanders through here who is still open to learning, here is a little long, but interesting nonetheless, explanation of earth's energy balance and the details of climate thermodynamics.

Climate and Earth?s Energy Budget : Feature Articles

 

[westwall]

You took the harder target that time with Al GOre.. Me personally, I'd would have gone for the


By posting the 10 yr sector stocks for wind and solar.. But I'm pretty bored with these clones.

Oh, dear old Al is an easy target too. But I'm with you on the same old BS train. They really do have nothing. It's quite sad actually. I went to a global warming "discussion" recently at WNC and they had Dettinger as the guest of honor and Brown as his screener, they had a sheriffs deputy at the door, and no questions from the audiience were allowed you had to write your questions out and then Brown could edit the question to suit him.

Naturally I wrote a very specific question that I could identify as mine due to the specific nature of the question, and it was edited down to "what does the Antarctic ice cap tell us?"

They were playing to a bunch of friends (mainly, the whole front half was friends and family) and STILL they had to resort to that sort of non-scientific bullshit.

Dettinger was repeating the same old storylines with nothing new, just correlation equals causation and he actually had modified one of the newer graphs to hide the flat temps of the last 15 years.

Sad and pathetic.

WNC as in Nevada? Boy they get the top road shows don't they? We haven't seen the muzzling and retail sale of science like that since Kepler and Gallileo..

Al Gore vs Lord Monckton.. Extreme fighting rules. Las Vegas baby.. No seconds or handlers. To the death grudge match.. No one under 16 admitted. No science prereqs.

Speaking of Sad and pathetic. We've got a clean-up on aisle 6.. Short circuit -- full melt-down..

Yep, the WNC campus in Carson City. The group putting it on really had no idea what was going on, I spoke at length with one woman and called out Dettinger for lying about Muller being a reformed sceptic and I sent her a piece Muller penned for Harvard over ten years ago that clearly paints him as a warmist to support what I had told her. Needless to say she was not happy that one of her speakers was a liar.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ergo, there has been no rise in CO2 global mean temperature...

Are you working on this chance to embarrass and defeat me??? Please feel free to work with the other 1/10 of your brain PMZ and produce for us both the warming projected SOLELY FROM CO2 and the wild claims made by the IPCC, the model butchers, and all your heroes including Al Gore..

Here's a hint --- Even AL GORE knows that the temp rise due to CO2 alone is not hysterical enough "to play on your FEARS"......

Quit scratching your ass, talk to your sock or clone and do some work...

Let's start with what we apparently agree on.

1) The more greenhouse gas molecules that there are in the atmosphere the more longwave radiation into space is reduced. However there is no effect on the incoming shortwave solar radiation.

2) Any body in a vacuum can only be affected by radiant energy. There are no other thermodynamic effects possible through a vacuum.

3) if a body in a vacuum receives radiant energy, it will rise in temperature until it radiates the same amount of energy away.

Do you agree so far? If not, what is your different understanding for these situations?

Don't care what your Cliff Note version of the AGW theory is.. I'm telling you the SOLE contribution of CO2 BY ITSELF doesn't project enough warming BY ITSELF to justify your hysteria..

Really time for you to do some work and learn about how COMPLICATED your AGW theory really is.. Not quoting from your recollection of what YOU think it means..

Here's a hint so you concentrate on WHY your version of AGW is waaaay too simplistic..

Global Warming : Feature Articles

Greenhouse gases are only part of the story when it comes to global warming. Changes to one part of the climate system can cause additional changes to the way the planet absorbs or reflects energy. These secondary changes are called climate feedbacks, and they could more than double the amount of warming caused by carbon dioxide alone. The primary feedbacks are due to snow and ice, water vapor, clouds, and the carbon cycle.

And INDEED the IPCC reports that generated the media frenzy about our impending doom did NOT predict temp based solely on GHGases, but upped the ante with a wheelbarrow full of speculation on feedbacks and Climate Sensitivities and MULTIPLIED the effect from CO2 alone to AT LEAST 3 times, and showed examples of the total warming being 4 or 5 times that CO2 would cause..

You best understand the theory you're defending......

 

[PMZ]

It's painfully clear that deniers are not educated enough to understand that they have nothing to stand on. They have bet on the wrong horse simply because he was, they thought, cheaper. Wrong on all counts. Wrong on the science, wrong on the economics, wrong on the path forward.

I don't know when the last flat earther died, perhaps he hasn't yet, but those who think that science can be manipulated to support their personal agendas always lose. Mankind doesn't invent truth, they learn it. The universe simply doesn't care what humanity wants.

Investors understand and those who are placing their bets now are betting on sustainable. There are still more politics to be applied to getting those who got wealthy from fossil fuels to pay all of their own bills rather than dump them on the taxpayers. But as the republican party has chosen extinction over adaption the noise will die away pretty quickly.

And, "An Inconvenient Truth", will be regarded by history as the prescient work that it was.

Prescient? Really? 9 SIGNIFICANT ERRORS OF FACT, 35 lesser errors of fact and you claim it is prescient? Then you insult those of us with real education to back up our observations? You ignorant little twerp go back to your moms basement.

Oh look! You're wrong again.

Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?

 

[PMZ]

Are you working on this chance to embarrass and defeat me??? Please feel free to work with the other 1/10 of your brain PMZ and produce for us both the warming projected SOLELY FROM CO2 and the wild claims made by the IPCC, the model butchers, and all your heroes including Al Gore..

Here's a hint --- Even AL GORE knows that the temp rise due to CO2 alone is not hysterical enough "to play on your FEARS"......

Quit scratching your ass, talk to your sock or clone and do some work...

Let's start with what we apparently agree on.

1) The more greenhouse gas molecules that there are in the atmosphere the more longwave radiation into space is reduced. However there is no effect on the incoming shortwave solar radiation.

2) Any body in a vacuum can only be affected by radiant energy. There are no other thermodynamic effects possible through a vacuum.

3) if a body in a vacuum receives radiant energy, it will rise in temperature until it radiates the same amount of energy away.

Do you agree so far? If not, what is your different understanding for these situations?

Don't care what your Cliff Note version of the AGW theory is.. I'm telling you the SOLE contribution of CO2 BY ITSELF doesn't project enough warming BY ITSELF to justify your hysteria..

Really time for you to do some work and learn about how COMPLICATED your AGW theory really is.. Not quoting from your recollection of what YOU think it means..

Here's a hint so you concentrate on WHY your version of AGW is waaaay too simplistic..

Global Warming : Feature Articles

Greenhouse gases are only part of the story when it comes to global warming. Changes to one part of the climate system can cause additional changes to the way the planet absorbs or reflects energy. These secondary changes are called climate feedbacks, and they could more than double the amount of warming caused by carbon dioxide alone. The primary feedbacks are due to snow and ice, water vapor, clouds, and the carbon cycle.

And INDEED the IPCC reports that generated the media frenzy about our impending doom did NOT predict temp based solely on GHGases, but upped the ante with a wheelbarrow full of speculation on feedbacks and Climate Sensitivities and MULTIPLIED the effect from CO2 alone to AT LEAST 3 times, and showed examples of the total warming being 4 or 5 times that CO2 would cause..

You best understand the theory you're defending......

I understand the theory that I'm defending very well. You are denying the science, that I understand, and perhaps you do too, for political reasons. No real scientist would ever do that.

So far you have agreed that there can't be any question that greenhouse gasses cause global warming. The only question is one of magnitude. And you believe that it's possible that something could come along that might offset the impact of greenhouse gasses.

Is that right? Remember, if you try to deny AGW now, you must explain which of my three facts are in error.

 

[PMZ]

Those in the business of surpressing and/or obfuscating AGW science like to pretend that there are accepted theories and data that support that which they would like to be true.

Here are a set of matched time line graphs that illustrate how the measured data supports the models of climate change that have evolved from science, as compared to politics.

Environmental Decision Making, Science, and Technology

 

[flacaltenn]

It's painfully clear that deniers are not educated enough to understand that they have nothing to stand on. They have bet on the wrong horse simply because he was, they thought, cheaper. Wrong on all counts. Wrong on the science, wrong on the economics, wrong on the path forward.

I don't know when the last flat earther died, perhaps he hasn't yet, but those who think that science can be manipulated to support their personal agendas always lose. Mankind doesn't invent truth, they learn it. The universe simply doesn't care what humanity wants.

Investors understand and those who are placing their bets now are betting on sustainable. There are still more politics to be applied to getting those who got wealthy from fossil fuels to pay all of their own bills rather than dump them on the taxpayers. But as the republican party has chosen extinction over adaption the noise will die away pretty quickly.

And, "An Inconvenient Truth", will be regarded by history as the prescient work that it was.

Prescient? Really? 9 SIGNIFICANT ERRORS OF FACT, 35 lesser errors of fact and you claim it is prescient? Then you insult those of us with real education to back up our observations? You ignorant little twerp go back to your moms basement.

Oh look! You're wrong again.

Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?

Oh shucks I guess that science sham website you've been eating out of TRUMPS the BBC news..

BBC NEWS | UK | Education | Gore climate film's nine 'errors'

Mr Justice Burton said the government could still send the film to schools - if accompanied by guidance giving the other side of the argument.

He was ruling on an attempt by a Kent school governor to ban the film from secondary schools.

The Oscar-winning film was made by former US Vice-President Al Gore.
Mr Justice Burton said he had no complaint about Gore's central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans. However, the judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus.

In his final verdict, the judge said the film could be shown as long as updated guidelines were followed.

These say teachers should point out controversial or disputed sections.

Without the guidance, updated after the case was launched, the government would have been breaking the law, the judge said.

The government has sent the film to all secondary schools in England, and the administrations in Wales and Scotland have done the same.

The film won two Oscars.

'Landmark victory'

Mr Justice Burton told London's High Court that distributing the film without the guidance to counter its "one-sided" views would breach education laws.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families was not under a duty to forbid the film, provided it was accompanied by the guidance, he said.

"I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act", he said.

The nine errors alleged by the judge included:


•Mr Gore's assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said this was "distinctly alarmist" and it was common ground that if Greenland's ice melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia".

•Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

•Mr Gore's reference to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears had actually drowned "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."

BTW: BOTH the Kilamanjaro and the polar bear "studies" have been since pretty much discredited. The snow study on Kilamanjaro was an unvetted college thesis and caused much embarrassment at the UN IPCC when this was revealed.

Stay out of the gutter...

 

[PMZ]

Are you working on this chance to embarrass and defeat me??? Please feel free to work with the other 1/10 of your brain PMZ and produce for us both the warming projected SOLELY FROM CO2 and the wild claims made by the IPCC, the model butchers, and all your heroes including Al Gore..

Here's a hint --- Even AL GORE knows that the temp rise due to CO2 alone is not hysterical enough "to play on your FEARS"......

Quit scratching your ass, talk to your sock or clone and do some work...

Let's start with what we apparently agree on.

1) The more greenhouse gas molecules that there are in the atmosphere the more longwave radiation into space is reduced. However there is no effect on the incoming shortwave solar radiation.

2) Any body in a vacuum can only be affected by radiant energy. There are no other thermodynamic effects possible through a vacuum.

3) if a body in a vacuum receives radiant energy, it will rise in temperature until it radiates the same amount of energy away.

Do you agree so far? If not, what is your different understanding for these situations?

Don't care what your Cliff Note version of the AGW theory is.. I'm telling you the SOLE contribution of CO2 BY ITSELF doesn't project enough warming BY ITSELF to justify your hysteria..

Really time for you to do some work and learn about how COMPLICATED your AGW theory really is.. Not quoting from your recollection of what YOU think it means..

Here's a hint so you concentrate on WHY your version of AGW is waaaay too simplistic..

Global Warming : Feature Articles

Greenhouse gases are only part of the story when it comes to global warming. Changes to one part of the climate system can cause additional changes to the way the planet absorbs or reflects energy. These secondary changes are called climate feedbacks, and they could more than double the amount of warming caused by carbon dioxide alone. The primary feedbacks are due to snow and ice, water vapor, clouds, and the carbon cycle.

And INDEED the IPCC reports that generated the media frenzy about our impending doom did NOT predict temp based solely on GHGases, but upped the ante with a wheelbarrow full of speculation on feedbacks and Climate Sensitivities and MULTIPLIED the effect from CO2 alone to AT LEAST 3 times, and showed examples of the total warming being 4 or 5 times that CO2 would cause..

You best understand the theory you're defending......

I'm thinking that one of your problems is The inability to read what you post.

For instance, "These secondary changes are called climate feedbacks, and they could more than double the amount of warming caused by carbon dioxide alone."

A statement that I believe is true, and very supportive of my position.

 

[PMZ]

Prescient? Really? 9 SIGNIFICANT ERRORS OF FACT, 35 lesser errors of fact and you claim it is prescient? Then you insult those of us with real education to back up our observations? You ignorant little twerp go back to your moms basement.

Oh look! You're wrong again.

Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?

Oh shucks I guess that science sham website you've been eating out of TRUMPS the BBC news..

BBC NEWS | UK | Education | Gore climate film's nine 'errors'

Mr Justice Burton said the government could still send the film to schools - if accompanied by guidance giving the other side of the argument.

He was ruling on an attempt by a Kent school governor to ban the film from secondary schools.

The Oscar-winning film was made by former US Vice-President Al Gore.
Mr Justice Burton said he had no complaint about Gore's central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans. However, the judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus.

In his final verdict, the judge said the film could be shown as long as updated guidelines were followed.

These say teachers should point out controversial or disputed sections.

Without the guidance, updated after the case was launched, the government would have been breaking the law, the judge said.

The government has sent the film to all secondary schools in England, and the administrations in Wales and Scotland have done the same.

The film won two Oscars.

'Landmark victory'

Mr Justice Burton told London's High Court that distributing the film without the guidance to counter its "one-sided" views would breach education laws.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families was not under a duty to forbid the film, provided it was accompanied by the guidance, he said.

"I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act", he said.

The nine errors alleged by the judge included:


•Mr Gore's assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said this was "distinctly alarmist" and it was common ground that if Greenland's ice melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia".

•Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

•Mr Gore's reference to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears had actually drowned "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."

BTW: BOTH the Kilamanjaro and the polar bear "studies" have been since pretty much discredited. The snow study on Kilamanjaro was an unvetted college thesis and caused much embarrassment at the UN IPCC when this was revealed.

Stay out of the gutter...

I think that you've made a good point. If you only read and believe information that supports what you wish was true, you can be pursuaded that what you want to be is fact.

 

[flacaltenn]

Let's start with what we apparently agree on.

1) The more greenhouse gas molecules that there are in the atmosphere the more longwave radiation into space is reduced. However there is no effect on the incoming shortwave solar radiation.

2) Any body in a vacuum can only be affected by radiant energy. There are no other thermodynamic effects possible through a vacuum.

3) if a body in a vacuum receives radiant energy, it will rise in temperature until it radiates the same amount of energy away.

Do you agree so far? If not, what is your different understanding for these situations?

Don't care what your Cliff Note version of the AGW theory is.. I'm telling you the SOLE contribution of CO2 BY ITSELF doesn't project enough warming BY ITSELF to justify your hysteria..

Really time for you to do some work and learn about how COMPLICATED your AGW theory really is.. Not quoting from your recollection of what YOU think it means..

Here's a hint so you concentrate on WHY your version of AGW is waaaay too simplistic..

Global Warming : Feature Articles

Greenhouse gases are only part of the story when it comes to global warming. Changes to one part of the climate system can cause additional changes to the way the planet absorbs or reflects energy. These secondary changes are called climate feedbacks, and they could more than double the amount of warming caused by carbon dioxide alone. The primary feedbacks are due to snow and ice, water vapor, clouds, and the carbon cycle.

And INDEED the IPCC reports that generated the media frenzy about our impending doom did NOT predict temp based solely on GHGases, but upped the ante with a wheelbarrow full of speculation on feedbacks and Climate Sensitivities and MULTIPLIED the effect from CO2 alone to AT LEAST 3 times, and showed examples of the total warming being 4 or 5 times that CO2 would cause..

You best understand the theory you're defending......

I'm thinking that one of your problems is The inability to read what you post.

For instance, "These secondary changes are called climate feedbacks, and they could more than double the amount of warming caused by carbon dioxide alone."

A statement that I believe is true, and very supportive of my position.

How this SHOULD work is that you take more than 2 minutes to pounce on my latest post with a half-digested witticism that proves you don't understand the conversation. Am I now your only hobby??

Don't CARE AGAIN --- what you believe... You told me that Global Warming Theory was as simple as the amount of CO2 man pumps into the atmosphere. CLEARLY what I posted REFUTES you prior assertion...

You need to go LOOK at all the HYSTERICAL PROJECTIONS of warming and figure out WHAT PERCENTAGE of that warming is attributable DIRECTLY to CO2..

If you continue to do these pop-up replies 2 minutes after I post -- and you DON'T go educate yourself on the topic.. Pretty soon, I won't be having any fun or learning..
So either have a mental breakdown like your ItFitzMe clone on-line and in public -- or put a little prep time into your responses.

 

[PMZ]

From my reference, above:

"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."

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh look! You're wrong again.

Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?

Oh shucks I guess that science sham website you've been eating out of TRUMPS the BBC news..

BBC NEWS | UK | Education | Gore climate film's nine 'errors'

Mr Justice Burton said the government could still send the film to schools - if accompanied by guidance giving the other side of the argument.

He was ruling on an attempt by a Kent school governor to ban the film from secondary schools.

The Oscar-winning film was made by former US Vice-President Al Gore.
Mr Justice Burton said he had no complaint about Gore's central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans. However, the judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus.

In his final verdict, the judge said the film could be shown as long as updated guidelines were followed.

These say teachers should point out controversial or disputed sections.

Without the guidance, updated after the case was launched, the government would have been breaking the law, the judge said.

The government has sent the film to all secondary schools in England, and the administrations in Wales and Scotland have done the same.

The film won two Oscars.

'Landmark victory'

Mr Justice Burton told London's High Court that distributing the film without the guidance to counter its "one-sided" views would breach education laws.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families was not under a duty to forbid the film, provided it was accompanied by the guidance, he said.

"I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act", he said.

The nine errors alleged by the judge included:


•Mr Gore's assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said this was "distinctly alarmist" and it was common ground that if Greenland's ice melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia".

•Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

•Mr Gore's reference to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears had actually drowned "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."

BTW: BOTH the Kilamanjaro and the polar bear "studies" have been since pretty much discredited. The snow study on Kilamanjaro was an unvetted college thesis and caused much embarrassment at the UN IPCC when this was revealed.

Stay out of the gutter...

I think that you've made a good point. If you only read and believe information that supports what you wish was true, you can be pursuaded that what you want to be is fact.

The advantage in science and technology is that the REAL truth is arrived at by a good process, experimentation, confirmation. NOT by political spin, or jury packing or peer pressure. I NEVER reject someone's link because of the source EVEN IF i personally find the choice horrendous. The worse the content of the link --- the easier it is to refute.

I WELCOME garbage links from adversaries.. But I rarely use them unless it links to original sources..

 

[PMZ]

Don't care what your Cliff Note version of the AGW theory is.. I'm telling you the SOLE contribution of CO2 BY ITSELF doesn't project enough warming BY ITSELF to justify your hysteria..

Really time for you to do some work and learn about how COMPLICATED your AGW theory really is.. Not quoting from your recollection of what YOU think it means..

Here's a hint so you concentrate on WHY your version of AGW is waaaay too simplistic..



And INDEED the IPCC reports that generated the media frenzy about our impending doom did NOT predict temp based solely on GHGases, but upped the ante with a wheelbarrow full of speculation on feedbacks and Climate Sensitivities and MULTIPLIED the effect from CO2 alone to AT LEAST 3 times, and showed examples of the total warming being 4 or 5 times that CO2 would cause..

You best understand the theory you're defending......

I'm thinking that one of your problems is The inability to read what you post.

For instance, "These secondary changes are called climate feedbacks, and they could more than double the amount of warming caused by carbon dioxide alone."

A statement that I believe is true, and very supportive of my position.

How this SHOULD work is that you take more than 2 minutes to pounce on my latest post with a half-digested witticism that proves you don't understand the conversation. Am I now your only hobby??

Don't CARE AGAIN --- what you believe... You told me that Global Warming Theory was as simple as the amount of CO2 man pumps into the atmosphere. CLEARLY what I posted REFUTES you prior assertion...

You need to go LOOK at all the HYSTERICAL PROJECTIONS of warming and figure out WHAT PERCENTAGE of that warming is attributable DIRECTLY to CO2..

If you continue to do these pop-up replies 2 minutes after I post -- and you DON'T go educate yourself on the topic.. Pretty soon, I won't be having any fun or learning..
So either have a mental breakdown like your ItFitzMe clone on-line and in public -- or put a little prep time into your responses.

Clearly part of your strategy to politisize science is to proclaim yourself of great scientific expertise hoping that nobody will test that supposition. I have, and you stand revealed as the great pretender. The King without his clothes.

Keep strutting, but we all see now how little of value you have to offer.

The world is not as you wish it was.

 

[PMZ]

The science deniers do so for political reasons. They would like to push off the most costly project mankind has ever undertaken to future generations.

The consequence of this, as is typical of solutions delayed, is to substantially increase the cost.

I have kids and grandkids. They have not been as fortunate as I in their placement in history. What they face will be tough enough without the greedy generation dumping even more their way.

Fortunately the deniers of science lost the argument a decade ago, but haven't stopped whining about it. So be it. The world has moved on without them and so should I. But I can't stand the whining pretending to be science. I just have a low tolerance for ignorance. So, despite the battle being already won, I choose to continue.

Certainly not sensible, but rewarding nonetheless.

 

[flacaltenn]

From my reference, above:

"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."

So you're gonna stay in the gutter and boot the BBC.. Do you want it from ABCNews? Or do we have to go get the judges ruling and find all of the misrepresentations that your garbage websites made???

I took my "Thanks" back...

BTW:: HERE'S THE ACTUAL TRIAL TRANSCRIPT>> Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)

Read it and realize that the fact the judge put quotes around the "errors" doesn't tell you jack about what he actually ruled. Samples of the Nine "errors"...

1. 'Error' 11: Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.

In scene 21 (the film is carved up for teaching purposes into 32 scenes), in one of the most graphic parts of the film Mr Gore says as follows:

"If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, the Low Countries: absolutely devastation. The area around Beijing is home to tens of millions of people. Even worse, in the area around Shanghai, there are 40 million people. Worse still, Calcutta, and to the east Bangladesh, the area covered includes 50 million people. Think of the impact of a couple of hundred thousand refugees when they are displaced by an environmental event and then imagine the impact of a 100 million or more. Here is Manhattan. This is the World Trade Center memorial site. After the horrible events of 9/11 we said never again. This is what would happen to Manhattan. They can measure this precisely, just as scientists could predict precisely how much water would breach the levee in New Orleans."


This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

2. 'Error' 12: Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.

In scene 20, Mr Gore states "that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand". There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.

3. 'Error' 18: Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor".

In scene 17 he says, "One of the ones they are most worried about where they have spent a lot of time studying the problem is the North Atlantic, where the Gulf Stream comes up and meets the cold wind coming off the Arctic over Greenland and evaporates the heat out of the Gulf Stream and the stream is carried over to western Europe by the prevailing winds and the earth's rotation ... they call it the Ocean Conveyor … At the end of the last ice age … that pump shut off and the heat transfer stopped and Europe went back into an ice age for another 900 or 1000 years. Of course that's not going to happen again, because glaciers of North America are not there. Is there any big chunk of ice anywhere near there? Oh yeah [pointing at Greenland]".

According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down.

4. 'Error' 3: Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs.

In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit.

Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts.

5. 'Error' 14: The snows of Kilimanjaro.

Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Milliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

6. 'Error' 16: Lake Chad etc

The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.


7. 'Error' 8: Hurricane Katrina.

In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.

Hey dude --- those are ERRORS.. When Al Gore says pacific islanders are evacuating to New Zealand and the judge finds NO EVIDENCE OF THAT --- that's not just an 'error' - its a lie..

And the word 'error' is not always used in quotes as asserted by your syphilitic source...

iii) There are errors and omissions in the film, to which I shall refer, and respects in which the film, while purporting to set out the mainstream view (and to belittle opposing views), does in fact itself depart from that mainstream, in the sense of the "consensus" expressed in the IPCC reports.

Mr Chamberlain persuasively pointed out in his skeleton (at paragraph 7(c)):

"Scientific hypotheses (such as the hypothesis that climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases) do not themselves constitute "political views" within the meaning of s407, even if they are doubted by particular political groups. But, in any event, nothing in the 1996 Act (or elsewhere) obliged teachers to adopt a position of studied neutrality between, on the one hand, scientific views which reflect the great majority of world scientific opinion and, on the other, a minority view held by a few dissentient scientists."
Of course that is right, and ss406 and 407 are not concerned with scientific disputes or with the approach of teachers to them. However, as will be seen, some of the errors, or departures from the mainstream, by Mr Gore in AIT in the course of his dynamic exposition, do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis. It is in that context that the Defendant, in actively distributing the film to all schools, may need to make clear that:


i) some or all of those matters are not supported/promoted by the Defendant [s406].

ii) there is a view to the contrary, i.e. (at least) the mainstream view [s407].

Boy Dude, you are doing EXACTLY what you wrongly accuse ME and other clear thinking citizens of USMB of doing.. And that is -- Clinging to the marginal gutter in spite of OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary.. You lose ---- BADLY...

BBC --- The Trial Judgement, you gonna UNSEE and UNHEAR what I've taught you here?
I put a lot of work into this and since I can't Neg you again right away -- You're now on ignore..