Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny (Al Gore,,,you need to read this.)

Al Gore is a hypocrite and his science used is B.S.

Regardless, of Who, How or Why the Poles are Melting.

Very shortly, your argument will be moot.




And by the way, if you & I find ourselves in the same lifeboat I'm kicking your ass over the side.

Much as it pains me to do so, i have to agree with pacman on this one (My God). Man made global warming is the scam of the century.

Just ignore him. Hopefully, he'll get bored and go looking for some quick gratification at a truck stop.

SCAM? FACTS? Do you even know the difference?

don't forget the vanishing rain forest
going going gone

lets consider the source and who pays them. exxon mobile spent 19 million to disprove the human cause. noone disputes that there are warming and cooling cycles that occur naturally, with or without man. but there is also conclusive proof that man contributes the lions share of green house gasses. also man creates all signifigant polltants that aren't airborne. toxic dumps etc. poisoned water etc. the dumb thing about fools like shit pacnguy is that he and his unfortunate relatives have to live in a polluted world as well as those who care about children and their future. they will suffer the same fate as the rest of us. more unfortunately it will be the poorest countries, which contribute the least to the pollutants, which will suffer the most.

Like China and India?

<<<Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth.">>>

Same speech-writer!?!

<<<"We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."

G.W. Bush speaking before the UN GeGeneral Assembly 11/10/2001>>>

and yet if you look at the images from space you can clearly see that in Greenland the ice is melting at an alarming pace.




And DEFORESTATION is MAN MADE. Are you always such an idiot? You just proved a point in Al Gores corner!



Number one, you can ALWAYS trust the U.N.
Number two, there have been tornados in places that have never had one recorded or in places that it is a very RARE occurance like in N.Y. and California lately (Been in the news if you would look).




Just look at this then:

[link to sfgate.com]
"Number of monster hurricanes doubled in past 34 years
Total of all types has fallen, report finds."

You can skew numbers in different ways there. Number of MONSTER ones have DOUBLED.



If you go to this link:
[link to www.unep.org]

You will see that between 1976-2000 that rainfall has been less by 12% and that surface temperatures have risen .8% in South Africa



2005 did not see the biggest falloff of an ice-sheet like in 2006 it did. You should also notice that just because it has been colder, that precipitation has not been the usual so, no net gain of glacier buildup.

See this link for LOSS:
[link to www.sciencedaily.com]

See this link for PHOTOS:
[link to earthobservatory.nasa.gov]




Once again you are trusting the U.N. and this whole article shows that this is just the reverse of what has been reported:

[link to www.washingtonpost.com]

Correction to This Article
A March 3 article incorrectly identified a Web site sponsored by Exxon Mobil and other corporations opposed to mandatory limits on greenhouse gases linked to climate change. The site is TCSDaily, not TSCDaily.
Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Melting Rapidly
New Study Warns Of Rising Sea Levels

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 3, 2006; Page A01

The Antarctic ice sheet is losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice a year in a trend that scientists link to global warming, according to a new paper that provides the first evidence that the sheet's total mass is shrinking significantly.

The new findings, which are being published today in the journal Science, suggest that global sea level could rise substantially over the next several centuries.


It is one of a slew of scientific papers in recent weeks that have sought to gauge the impact of climate change on the world's oceans and lakes. Just last month two researchers reported that Greenland's glaciers are melting into the sea twice as fast as previously believed, and a separate paper in Science today predicts that by the end of this century lakes and streams on one-fourth of the African continent could be drying up because of higher temperatures.

The new Antarctic measurements, using data from two NASA satellites called the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), found that the amount of water pouring annually from the ice sheet into the ocean -- equivalent to the amount of water the United States uses in three months -- is causing global sea level to rise by 0.4 millimeters a year. The continent holds 90 percent of the world's ice, and the disappearance of even its smaller West Antarctic ice sheet could raise worldwide sea levels by an estimated 20 feet.

"The ice sheet is losing mass at a significant rate," said Isabella Velicogna, the study's lead author and a research scientist at Colorado University at Boulder's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. "It's a good indicator of how the climate is changing. It tells us we have to pay attention."

Richard Alley, a Pennsylvania State University glaciologist who has studied the Antarctic ice sheet but was not involved in the new research, said more research is needed to determine if the shrinkage is a long-term trend, because the new report is based on just three years of data. "One person's trend is another person's fluctuation," he said.

But Alley called the study significant and "a bit surprising" because a major international scientific panel predicted five years ago that the Antarctic ice sheet would gain mass this century as higher temperatures led to increased snowfall.

"It looks like the ice sheets are ahead of schedule" in terms of melting, Alley said. "That's a wake-up call. We better figure out what's going on."

Velicogna acknowledged that it is hard to predict how fast the ice sheet will melt in the future but said, "I don't expect it's going to stop in the next couple of years."

Scientists have been debating whether the Antarctic ice sheet is expanding or shrinking overall, because the center of the sheet tends to gain mass through snowfall whereas the coastal regions are more vulnerable to melting.

Velicogna and her co-author, University of Colorado at Boulder physics professor John Wahr, based their measurements on data from the two GRACE satellites that circle the world more than a dozen times a day at an altitude of 310 miles. The satellites measure variations in Earth's mass and gravitational pull: Increases or decreases in the Antarctic ice sheet's mass change the distance between the satellites as they fly over the region.

"The strength of GRACE is that we were able to assess the entire Antarctic region in one fell swoop to determine if it was gaining or losing mass," Wahr said.

But some scientists remain unconvinced. Oregon state climatologist George Taylor noted that sea ice in some areas of Antarctica is expanding and part of the region is getting colder, despite computer models that would predict otherwise.

"The Antarctic is really a puzzle," said Taylor, who writes for the Web site TSCDaily, which is partly financed by fossil fuel companies that oppose curbs on greenhouse gases linked to climate change. "A lot more research is needed to understand the degree of climate and ice trends in and around the Antarctic."

At the other end of the temperature spectrum, two South African researchers are reporting today in Science that their computer models indicate that by 2100 climate change may rob the south and west of Africa and areas in the upper Nile region of a significant portion of their current water supply. Warming may reduce the rainfall needed to replenish up to 25 percent of Africa's surface water, said Maarten de Wit and Jacek Stankiewicz at the University of Cape Town in Rondebosch, South Africa.

"Water is essential to human survival," they wrote, "and changes in its supply can potentially have devastating implications, particularly in Africa, where much of the population relies on local rivers for water."

Congressional Democrats, including Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.) said yesterday that the two new papers show that the United States must act quickly to impose mandatory limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The Bush administration opposes such curbs on the grounds that they could hurt the country's economy and has instead invested money on new technology to limit greenhouse emissions and further climate science research.

"Climate change is not just someone else's concern but a very real threat to the lives and livelihood of people across the globe," Kerry said.



I would think that what I have posted here nullifies what was posted by you.

One more thing:

The Most Terrifying Video Youll Ever See:
[link to video.stumbleupon.com]

A little over 9 minutes that is worth your time, which ever side you are on with this issue.

there has been no scientific link between smoking and lung cancer but they still banned smoking ...!

regards
JF

Liar

Read this:

[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

Then tell me that cigarettes dont cause cancer. All of the chemicals listed are known cancer causing substances.

Your an idiot.

PAC, you've been posting some really good threads lately. This is one of them. The subject needs to be debated because of so much disinfo. I'll add this in response to global warming and for global COOLING!

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research. A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes […] Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.
~By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah~
(Filed: 18/07/2004 ) [link to www.telegraph.co.uk]

By: Phil Brennan <snippets>

As the underwater volcanoes heat the oceans, the rate of evaporation of the ocean water increases. As the evaporation increases, it increases the amount of moisture rising into the sky. With more moisture in the sky, the amount of precipitation must therefore also increase ... When this increased precipitation begins falling in the winter, you have the makings of an ice age ........

Our seas, heated by underwater volcanism, are leading us directly into the next ice age . . . and we don’t even know it.´

"That´s what El Ni&#65533;o is all about," Felix explained . "Warmer seas send excess moisture into the sky, leading to increased precipitation. .....

The bottom line here is cold, frigid air keeps driving south from the polar regions which the Global Warming hucksters keep telling us are warming and that the polar ice cap is melting. They hope we´ll forget the simple fact that a disappearing ice cap and warming polar regions cannot produce and send bitterly cold air southward.

That frigid air meets warmer air coming up from the tropics and the colder the air from the poles and the warmer the air it meets, the more violent the weather. ......

If you look around the world you´ll note a lot of tectonic activity, especially underseas where red hot magma is boiling up from under the ocean bottoms and heating the oceans. Like a teapot with boiling water shooting steam upward, the superheated oceans are sending greater and greater amounts of moisture aloft where it is converted into the precipitation that is causing record breaking massive rainstorms and blizzards.

"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact." [link to www.etherzone.com]

"In geological prospective, the case for cooling is strong ... If this interglacial age lasts no longer than a dozen earlier ones in the past million years, as recorded in deep sea sediments, we may reasonably suppose the world is about due to slide into the next ice age."

Think about it. CO2 skyrocketed 100,000 years ago and helped bring on an ice age, but has any body suggested that the CO2 levels were boosted by auto emissions or the burning of fossil fuels? Of course not -- there weren't any 100,000 years ago. There wasn't a Toyota or a backyard barbecue in sight.

Beloved Mother Nature did it all on her own.

And the snow cover at the poles has continued to grow, not melt as the global warming cult expects.

The omens are there. The iceman cometh.

[link to www.pvbr.com]

It was Tony Blair who enlisted the help of Al Gore to promote the idea (hoax) of global warming. It's all political...that's what the elite are all about...politics as usual with taxes following.
.

Pac you are an imbecile. You do not even come back to your own thread when proven wrong.

Pac's just looking for some man-love.

Did you not have this same thread before? With the same article I mean...

I think I remember that, though perhaps someone else posted it.

Still, this is not a very good article if you are up on the actual science. This is nit picking in the dark, hoping to fool a few people not up on the fact, or "Preaching to the choir" so that people that do not want to think anything bad will ever happen can rally together and use such things as "Proof".

Here are my questions if you are going to follow this path, perhaps answering them would really be a helpful exercise.

1. Who benefits from the "Global Warming Hoax". What happens in fifteen/twenty years when nothing happens?

2. Is the data showing warming fake? If so, how come so many scientists are "in on it" how come the main body of scientists against this are "old guard" those notorious for disliking change? (On almost all topics BTW...)

3. As more and more data comes in showing not only increased temperatures, but the greater likelihood of it being man made or contributed to by man, how does this effect your theory?

4. Who is paying for the "anti-global warming" side of things? Who then is paying for the "pro Global Warming" side of things?

5. If this is all about a "Carbon Tax" what are these governments demanding such going to do when it turns out (per your theory) that nothing is happening? Don't you think they can just tax people anyway, and in fact, ARE taxing people anyway? Why force a Carbon tax, when almost anything would work? (And does work...Tea party oh Tea party wherefore art thou...)

6. How come almost NO scientific work is coming from the Anti-Global Warming side and most of the work and verification of work is coming from the other side, when the Anti-global warming side is spending nearly as much money? (Slightly more I hear, 18 Billion to around 12 billion or some such, over the course of almost a decade.)

If these can all be answered with real info, not just "cause I said so!" then I am willing to really look into these ideas, and not just disregard them because the science is not there. (Science is only as good as the scientists are honest...Either they are being honest and your theories are just hot air from unknowledgable folk OR All these scientists are liars, and some of the above questions may point to that...)