Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
My general experience is that vast majority of individuals who support global warming are hippies with no possibility of critical thought. A smaller group actually do try to make an informed decision but they are greatly outnumbered by the ones who simply drank the kool-aid.

So what research led you to conclude that GW is real and caused by C02?

[/ QUOTE ]

In my experience the vast majority of people who deny global warming are either willfully ignorant or incompetent. The fact that you claim all AGW supporters are hippies proves just that:

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm

[Henry17]

[ QUOTE ]
Many of these quotes reference the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the IPCC reports are based on questionable scientific practises anything else that follows from them is worthless.

How can people base everything on the IPCC report when similar practises would prevent any scientist from getting published by a legitimate peer reviewed journal?

Not to mention if you actually read the reports carefully they actually contradict the claim that there is a link between C02 and GW.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many of these quotes reference the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the IPCC reports are based on questionable scientific practises anything else that follows from them is worthless.

How can people base everything on the IPCC report when similar practises would prevent any scientist from getting published by a legitimate peer reviewed journal?

Not to mention if you actually read the reports carefully they actually contradict the claim that there is a link between C02 and GW.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure if you point these things out, like where they contradict that and specifics on what questionable practices you are talking about, the ones that completely invalidate the results, wacki will probably take some time to address them.

[Henry17]

Questionable practises:

1) Telling scientists what results they want before any work is done and refusing / silencing any of their own people who contradict the results they want.

2) Publishing results / conclusions 6-8 months before they publish the actual meat and potatoes scientific work those conclusions are based on. Makes it impossible for anyone to criticize their methods since they don't publish those till way after the media has gotten bored of the subject and moved on.

Contradiction:

If you look at the last two reports. C02 levels have increased dramatically (at a greater rate then anyone would have projected) yet the IPCC's own projections for temperature have decreased dramatically.

There is are only two possible methods of explaining this.

1) The IPCC uses questionable science so the previous temperature projections were wrong. Which leads us to question why we should listen to them now.

2) That there is no link between C02 and GW

Based on the trend that is forming with IPCC reports we don't have to do anything about GW. We just need to wait for the next report since they are clearly on a revising temperature down trend.

I'm too young to remember the details but I when I was very young the fear was that an Ice Age was coming. That was based on some awful science. Then when I was in my 3rd year of law school it was all about the apocalypse that was going to happen with Y2K and how we'd cash in on these major class-actions. Again all of it based on awful science. GW is just the next one.

[tame_deuces]

Last year, because I was interested in the subject, I read quite abit scientific reports on manmade climate change. Now obviously I didn't understand all of it since I am not a climatologist but I did understand enough to understand that there were quite a few differences in opinion on methodology on many popular papers, some supporters and some not-so supporters.

I certainly didn't get an impression of broad unilateral agreement on what is going on, why or what is going to happen.

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
Telling scientists what results they want before any work is done and refusing / silencing any of their own people who contradict the results they want.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't make this kind of statement without backing it up and not loose a ton of credibility here.

[ QUOTE ]

If you look at the last two reports. C02 levels have increased dramatically (at a greater rate then anyone would have projected) yet the IPCC's own projections for temperature have decreased dramatically.

There is are only two possible methods of explaining this.

1) The IPCC uses questionable science so the previous temperature projections were wrong. Which leads us to question why we should listen to them now.

2) That there is no link between C02 and GW

[/ QUOTE ]

All science is questionable, that's why it's not called religion.

[Henry17]

[ QUOTE ]

You can't make this kind of statement without backing it up and not loose a ton of credibility here.

[/ QUOTE ]

The assumption was that anyone who cared would know what I was referring to.

Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza (both respected professors and scientists) lost their funding.

Henk Tennekes was fired from his position as research director for questioning the science behind GW.

Aksel Winn-Nielsen director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization was forced out and accused of being a shill for big energy.

Richard Lindzen who contributed to the IPCC report but then spoke out that the summery released months ahead of the full report was not supported by the full report was also no longer needed.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

living through WW1/2 etc was a disaster for huge numbers of people - THEIR would did fall into the gutter. A few generations later it makes not a jot of difference.

[/ QUOTE ]




The past makes more than a jot of difference on the present. The colonization and arbitrary border drawing done by European powers, for example, continues to cause a ton of problems. Iraq and Israel/Palestine are the ones most currently relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah current calamaties still make a difference and some current calamaties are in part a consequence of past calamaties but the example was illustrative and these wars are still comparatively recent.

Hows the black death affecting you, the last ice age?

Current calamaties fairly soon become footnotes in history, what do you think the expected effect of WW2 is in people living in the year 3000, what about the year 20,000?

[/ QUOTE ]
My point wasn't that all past disasters effect me, it was that some do. And it wasn't that they will directly effect all future generations, but they can easily be very relevant to those 500 years in the future. I see nothing wrong with claiming that Al Gore cares about climate change, because he cares about future generations (no idea how true it is, but it's a logical possibility).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
My point wasn't that all past disasters effect me, it was that some do.

[/ QUOTE ]
They don't have a negative expectation for you. That's all that matters even if you ignore the likely positive expectations due to technological advances from which we all benefit. Unless you're seriously claiming the black death or last ice age has some systematic adverse effect on us.

[ QUOTE ]
I see nothing wrong with claiming that Al Gore cares about climate change, because he cares about future generations (no idea how true it is, but it's a logical possibility).

[/ QUOTE ]
Its logically possible he cares about clinate change beacuse of how it impact humanity in the year 20,000. But it would make him stunningly strange and a huge pillock.

Why not just accept the obvious that if his well-meaning its because he cares about the devastation it will cause to those who will live through it.

chez

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point wasn't that all past disasters effect me, it was that some do.

[/ QUOTE ]
They don't have a negative expectation for you. That's all that matters even if you ignore the likely positive expectations due to technological advances from which we all benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]
They do if I'm living in the middle east or certain parts of Africa. Like I said, the colonization and arbitrary border drawing by European powers is still causing plenty of problems.

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you're seriously claiming the black death or last ice age has some systematic adverse effect on us.

[/ QUOTE ]
I already said it's "some", not "all".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see nothing wrong with claiming that Al Gore cares about climate change, because he cares about future generations (no idea how true it is, but it's a logical possibility).

[/ QUOTE ]
Its logically possible he cares about clinate change beacuse of how it impact humanity in the year 20,000. But it would make him stunningly strange and a huge pillock. Why not just accept the obvious that if his well-meaning its because he cares about the devastation it will cause to those who will live through it.

[/ QUOTE ]
"future generations" does not have to mean "all future generations". Those who live through it might be future generations.