Is Al Gore a climate change denier plant?
He's rightfully saying that the earth is warming up, but his predictions are so fucking retarded and over the top that now everyone just assumes that every actual climate scientist must be wrong also.
Is Al Gore a climate change denier plant?
Ayden Campbell
Other urls found in this thread:
forbes.com
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
pnas.org
researchgate.net
sciencedirect.com
pdfs.semanticscholar.org
kewalo.hawaii.edu
science.sciencemag.org
researchgate.net
aoml.noaa.gov
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
nationalreview.com
web.archive.org
scholar.google.ca
sci-hub.cc
sci-hub.cc
pnas.org
aip.org
twitter.com
Robert Turner
>denier
Heretic!
Blasphemer!
There is only one true word.
And that word is Climate Change.
Change is always good, except when it isn't.
Luis Russell
He's a politician what do you expect? He says whatever he needs to in order to push his agenda. This is why you only pay attention to what's recorded in scientific literature.
Gavin King
>He says whatever he needs to in order to push his agenda.
A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)
Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”
In 1988, a former Canadian Minister of the Environment told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France said: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”
Julian Turner
You're using the words of politicians to try and debunk science, how about posting scientific papers that debunk AGW instead?
Robert Nelson
>You're using the words of politicians to try and debunk science
KEK
>how about posting scientific papers that debunk AGW instead?
You won't believe them.
Your kind follows beliefs, not science.
Jaxon Cook
What?
Levi Rogers
Pretty picture, did you draw it yourself? Please cite your source. I will accept any papers from any scientific journals found on the master journal list.
Thomas Adams
>What?
Haven't you heard the Good News?
We're all gonna freeze to death.
“Earth Day” 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: “At the present rate of nitrogen build-up, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable."
“Earth Day” 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
April 28, 1975 Newsweek “There are ominous signs that Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically….The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it….The central fact is that…the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down…If the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”
1976 Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling,”: “This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.”
July 9, 1971, Washington Post: “In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to ten years could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”
June, 1975, Nigel Calder in International Wildlife: “The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.”
Luis Martinez
Wait never mind I actually read your graph. It says it's recording the inter glacial temperature of Greenland, that's not the average global temperature.
Charles Bell
>Please cite your source
Typical True Believer.
The source is on the picture, retard.
Do I need to teach you English?
No matter. You wouldn't 'believe' that either.
Josiah Rogers
You actually believe the shit written in shit like Newsweek and the Washington Post? I thought "skeptics" were supposed to be skeptical, not blindly believing in cheap tabloid trash.
Daniel Edwards
Who cares what a few people said in the 70's?
Science is about trial and error, testing, analysis and peer-reviewed papers.
It takes a long time for a scientific consensus to form.
Lincoln Hernandez
>Who cares what a few people said in the 70's?
You're right.
We should be worried about what a few people are saying now.
January 2000 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the EDF (in a NY Times interview) on mild winters in New York: “It does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.”
1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist: “It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”
Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1995, the greenhouse effect will be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures…”
(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska will be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…illegal American migrants will surge into Mexico.”
June 30, 1989, AP: U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER–entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos,” said Brown, director of the U.N. Environment Program. He added that governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect.
Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000
David Howard
>We should be worried about what a few people are saying now.
Hate to break it to you, but the current year is 2016, 2000 at latest is far from what people are saying now. Also you don't seem to know what's actually written in the scientific literature. These are still quotes from politicians or scientists saying things where they have no restrictions beyond the bounds of peer reviewed scientific articles.
Ayden Flores
Global warming proponents believe video games are science. Every fuckung man made global warming scenario comes from computers programed with made up shit. It's not science. I can make a computer program that shows my dick growing to 10 feet in 20 years by eating brussel sprouts.
Luis Morris
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Didn't know they had computer simulations of climate in 1938.
Ayden White
>Hate to break it to you, but the current year is 2016, 2000 at latest is far from what people are saying now.
Yeah.
Only the "Current Year" matters.
"Climate Change" will cause more hurricanes, or less.
"Climate Change" will cause warmer winters, or colder ones.
"Climate Change" will cause rivers to go dry, or flood.
Everything is "Climate Change" now.
Only a Heretic would disagree.
Nicholas Allen
What about all those saying global warming is real - and will be awesome? Or at least a net positive.
Jose Smith
>He's rightfully saying that the earth is warming up
You people are so sure of your religion, it's pathetic.
Julian Harris
Oh boy more words from a newspaper instead of scientific articles that are rigorously tested, I better believe them like a priest in god.
Evan Garcia
>actual climate scientist
haha.. ha... Hahahahahahahahahaha
Joseph Long
Well yeah, my whole thread was about climate change reactionaries like Gore that go way overboard. "Oceans boiling" etc.
But you do accept the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas r-right?
Samuel James
pnas.org
researchgate.net
sciencedirect.com
pdfs.semanticscholar.org
kewalo.hawaii.edu
science.sciencemag.org
researchgate.net
aoml.noaa.gov
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Can you provide some articles to counter these? That'd be fantastic.
Brandon Nguyen
>scientific articles that are rigorously tested
Except, they aren't.
EVERY prediction made by True Believers has failed.
Your religion is a sham.
>B-But muh consensus
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
Austin Parker
...
David Perry
I never mentioned a consensus, you're right science is not settled by consensus it's settled by hard evidence which is found through peer reviewed scientific literature. If you have some recent papers countering the science of AGW feel free to share them here.
Brayden Garcia
>But you do accept the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas r-right?
>Well, O-OK Maybe Mary wasn't technically a virgin, but you have to believe that the Son of God was born in a manger, r-right?
Your predictions have failed.
Your models have failed.
Science requires proof, not belief.
Belief is the realm of religion, not science.
Julian Gutierrez
> everyone just assumes that every actual climate scientist must be wrong also
No, no rational person does this.
Connor Morgan
The predictions that the earth will get warmer, net-ice mass of the earth will shrink, and therefore raising the sea levels have come true.
Hudson Brown
Well, one things for sure...
Hillary hates him.
Dylan Long
Still no scientific papers showing there is no link between CO2 and temperature. If there were no link you could prove this too, or better yet give a better reason for why temperatures are rising. So far no model has come nearly as close to explaining the recent temperature rise nearly as well as CO2.
Wyatt Gutierrez
MAN
Camden Davis
Global temperature average is rising
Justin Brown
BEAR
Christopher Robinson
PIG
Isaiah Mitchell
Why would you reply to yourself?
Dominic Lee
Did you know that sweet potato is a remarkable plant. It’s a staple food of many traditional cultures. NASA has considered it a potential crop to be grown on spaceships for long term missions. In terms of energy production it’s only 3rd behind sugar cane and cassava. It produces the most food value (a combination of edible energy and nutrition) of any crop per unit space and time. A study of Fijian farms using manual labour showed that ratio of energy put into farming vs yield of energy was 1:17 for rice and 1:60 for sweet potato. It grows on marginal soil and doesn’t require much nitrogen to grow. It takes a relatively short growth period of 3-4 months to yield. All parts of the plant can be eaten including the leaves which provide additional protein and nutrients.
Ethan Clark
>you're right science is not settled by consensus it's settled by hard evidence
I agree.
Show me the hard evidence for your beliefs.
Show me the testable theories for Climate Change™.
Show me one verified outcome that was predicted by the models.
The Emperor has no clothes.
Thomas Thompson
...
Lincoln Lee
I was asking what you thought about them, not shooting links at you to see who has more saved.
Bentley Mitchell
If I gave you a list of 2000 scientific articles that show a warming pattern, ice mass loss and rising sea levels, would you actually read them, or just call me a climate shill blindly believing in a religion?
Carson Allen
>The predictions that the earth will get warmer, net-ice mass of the earth will shrink, and therefore raising the sea levels have come true.
No shit?
We're in the middle of an interstadial.
The entire Earth has been warming for the last 15000 years, give or take a a few cold periods.
Strangely enough, that always happens during an interstadial.
>God is only taking a nap. He'll smite you when he wakes.
Proof. Testable theories.
I don't believe in your religion.
Science doesn't require belief. it requires evidence.
>Denier!
>Blasphemer!
You got me there.
Ayden Clark
Provide a scientific paper proving the warming in the last century has been caused by the interstadial period and only the interstadial period. Shouldn't be that hard right? After all you have science on your side :^).
Liam Foster
What's with the 'heretic' 'denier' 'blasphemer' stuff? You just insert those things yourself.
You seem a little on edge.
Easton Foster
>If I gave you a list of 2000 scientific articles that show a warming pattern, ice mass loss and rising sea levels, would you actually read them, or just call me a climate shill blindly believing in a religion?
Lying was your first mistake.
Claiming that science requires a consensus was your second.
Ignoring past predictions that failed was your third.
>Those idiots in the 70s who predicted an ice age weren't REAL scientists.
>Those idiots in the 90s who predicted no more snow were false prophets.
>I'm preaching the truth
You're full of shit.
No one has successfully modeled the climate of the Earth, with predictions that were verified.
You WANT to believe that humans cause the climate to change, because that would be controllable.
You might be right. Just not for the reasons you BELIEVE you're right. Or, the reasons you desperately need to be right.
Lincoln Bell
ar5
Your time would be better spent reading through it rather than jerking off about what scientists said 40 years ago
Blake Gutierrez
>hurr the weather report last week was wrong
>lets never trust it again
Science has come a long way since back then.
Lincoln Price
>What's with the 'heretic' 'denier' 'blasphemer' stuff?
You tell me.
Why do 'Climate Change' proponents always demand to know what others believe?
Why do you care what the fuck I think?
If your Holy Climate Change is real, my opinions won't make a bit of difference.
Why do people like you always ask "Do you BELIEVE in Climate CHANGE?"
You're looking for witches to burn, not theories to test.
Eli Wilson
>Your time would be better spent reading through it rather than jerking off about what scientists said 40 years ago
Yeah. Scientists 40 years ago were so ignorant.
The ones now are perfect. They'll prove those old blasphemers wrong.
Science is a process, not a belief.
Anyone who claims otherwise is trying to sell you something.
Jayden Hughes
How is it different from any other argument?
One side is right and one side is wrong.
Ryder Parker
Nobody asked what you believed in. This thread started with this asking if Al Gore was a denier plant. Then you barged in waving your science is a hoax religion around in this post . You seem to be heavily invested in making people think science is wrong. Kind of like how creationists do about evolution, organic companies do about making GMOs look dangerous, anti-vaxxers do about making vaccines cause autism, or tobacco industries did about smoking being healthy.
Brayden Nelson
so you haven't read ar5 then?
Jacob Moore
Sometimes, both sides are wrong.
Sometimes, you just don't know.
But, you want to know. You NEED to know.
You just need to be right.
Austin Cox
>so you haven't read ar5 then?
Here you go, Bruce.
The 97% “study” was an IRL Australian shitpost.
>“only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed.
>Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian "scientist" John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial and creator of the blog Skeptical Science. In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.
nationalreview.com
>Australian SCIENTIST John Cook
From the skeptical science website, ran by the great Australian scientist John Cook:
>This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade
web.archive.org
Why lie if you're right?
Josiah Sullivan
Man you really don't seem to get it. Science is not done by consensus. Also you're using MORE media articles instead of scientific articles. What's so hard to understand about this? Science is not determined by people, but rather evidence found in scientific papers. Provide those if you want to prove the science wrong.
Jackson Ward
interesting
why do you think that people are pushing it when the solution will be very expensive.
Also what harm is there in attempting to slow warming when it results in
>switching to renewable technologies (non renewables AREN'T sustainable)
>stopping environmental degradation in general
Jacob Lee
> Is Al Gore a climate change denier plant?
No. "Global warming" is itself so retarded that it doesn't need an Al Gore for discrediting.
Chase Jones
>Science is not done by consensus
Read that again.
And again.
Read it until you understand it.
I don't give a shit how many celebrities believe your religion.
You.
Have.
No.
Proof.
No testable or verifiable hypothesis.
Climate Change™ is a religion.
You want to believe.
You need to believe.
You desperately need for me to believe.
Tough shit.
"Clovis First" was a consensus as well.
Now, it’s a discredited hypothesis due to the evil Deniers and Heretics who continued the scientific process while ignoring bullshit consensus. Because of a few well funded bullies and blowhards, “Science” has become a politically correct religion.
For the past 60 years, any discoveries of settlements in the Americas have been ridiculed and discarded if they were dated earlier than the Clovis culture. Only now, as Clovis First proponents are finally dying off, are we acknowledging and studying obviously earlier settlements.
Kennewick Man is a fine example. Only after 15+ years of legal battles, has that skeleton eventually been studied enough to be tied to the Jomon people of northern Japan. Clovis First consensus archaeologists demanded the bones be reburied without study, using Native American religion as their excuse.
Your words betray you.
Science doesn't need belief, or missionaries.
Charles Taylor
I think I found your problem, you're using a non-scientific article search engine to find your sources and you're getting confused. This is a free search engine to find scientific articles and eliminates all those unreliable blogs you keep finding. Google is very unreliable but Google Scholar is a whole different beast scholar.google.ca
William Sanchez
>Global temperature average is rising
It's not. The measurements have not been controlled for the urban heat island effect, something which is real unlike 'global warming'.
Funding for actual meteorology (i.e., putting meteorological stations in remote locales in the middle of nowhere) has been cut, the temperature measurements we have are basically guesswork.
Dominic Ward
the burden of proof is on you leaf
Find a recent study that proves that anthropgenic climate change is real
Daniel Sullivan
>I think I found your problem
Yeah.
My problem is that I don't share your beliefs.
I'm sure I'll burn in hellfire for all eternity.
Liam Rivera
>If you can find something using that which disproves AGW I'll take those as solid evidence.
It's impossible to prove the absence of something, you tard. Did they even teach you the basics of the scientific method at school?
Science doesn't "prove" things, science makes testable predictions via mathematical models.
'Climate change' is not science, every since prediction they ever made has failed to correspond to reality.
Landon Thompson
sci-hub.cc
Here.
sci-hub.cc
Here.
Ah the wonders of Google Scholar, try it yourself.
Global temperatures are rising, find a more reliable model for this than AGW.
Logan Ramirez
bump
Jack Gray
the simple fact that global temperatures are rising doesn't proof that humans are causing it, or it is dangerous. The climate has always changed.
Parker Sullivan
I'm confused. The chart you're presenting me tells me CO2 is very highly correlated with temperature. Why would our CO2 emissions act differently to other sources of CO2?
Cameron Nelson
There's 2 main drivers of temperature: greenhouse gases and the sun.
The sun's activity hasn't risen, but the amount of greenhouse gases have.
Not all the consequences are bad by the way. For example crop yields should be larger, since they get some more warmth, and they feed on CO2.
Ian Rivera
sciencedirect.com
Sorry about this but crop yield increase from the extra CO2 is largely offset by other factors.
Lucas Morris
>Not all the consequences are bad by the way. For example crop yields should be larger
This might be okay if record amount of vegetation was not being cut down each year
That's true. I'm unsure towards climate change. I've learnt about it a bit at uni but become sceptical when people talk about this stuff and that all models have failed and the recent pause in warming
William Jenkins
Its kinda like
>Hey all of our predictions so far have been wrong
>regardless you should believe us know!
>The whole world will be ruined in 40 years! Think of your children!
>unless you spend billions of dollars in this specific way that will simultaneously create a new world order governed by 1 major body
Ian Cooper
pnas.org
This article was actually used by a denier in another thread due to the "... suggests that the anthropogenic global warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century" line. But it actually explains the pauses and cooling that occurs even with AGW taking place, it also causes more rapid heating than AGW should be suggesting. "The underlying net anthropogenic warming rate in the industrial era is found to have been steady since 1910 at 0.07–0.08 °C/decade, with superimposed AMO-related ups and downs that included the early 20th century warming, the cooling of the 1960s and 1970s, the accelerated warming of the 1980s and 1990s, and the recent slowing of the warming rates." This was actually one of the key reasons for so much controversy and the whole global cooling scare in the 70s. It's well documented and taken into consideration nowadays though.
Jason Morales
Thanks for the link.
Never heard of this before
>Quantitatively, the recurrent multidecadal internal variability, often underestimated in attribution studies, accounts for 40% of the observed recent 50-y warming trend.
>models predict warming over last 20 years
>no warming
>oh well lets just add these variable and now the models work again!
Stinks of people trying to get grants to me.
Jaxson Fisher
Smells more like trying to perfect an actual model to me instead of just screaming there's no evidence and burying heads in the sand when evidence does become available. Do you also accuse physicists of looking for grant money when they discover the atom doesn't work like Bohr's model of the atom says it should and trying to piece together how it works?
Jayden Mitchell
Why should we trust a model when it was just wrong? What if there is some other random variable that they add in 50 years in the future if climate hasn't warmed to say that it will occur in the next 50 years. What if we waste billions of dollars and ruin our economies and establish a new world order for nothing?
Though I largely agree with you its good to be skeptical when there is so much involved and so much at stake. This is in the back of my mind
Ethan Clark
aip.org
The relationship between temperature and greenhouse gasses has been known in theory and mathematically since the 19th century. Anything not conforming to these calculations on the planet are caused by other factors that need to be taken into consideration. At this point we can say with relative certainty that nothing will disprove that CO2 concentration increases temperature. In order for that to happen a massive change in our understanding of basic physics and chemistry would need to occur.
Adam Nelson
Temperature measurements have not been controlled for the urban heat island effect.
Nobody is collecting temperature data in e.g. the heart of the Congo jungle, Papua New Guinea or on Wrangell Island.
Even here in Moscow (the largest city in Europe) the only reliable temperature monitoring is at the airports. (Needless to say, the people doing it aren't scientists and don't give a shit about controlled experiments.)
Meanwhile it is an obvious fact that Moscow's center is 1-2 degrees warmer than the outskirts, and the outskirts are 1-2 degrees warmer than the uninhabited surroundings.
Adrian Mitchell
Climate scientists know very well about the urban heat island effect and take it into consideration when they work with their data. In fact one of the complaints of deniers is that scientists work with "adjusted data". The data is adjusted in a huge part BECAUSE of the urban heat island effect. So either we work without adjusting the data to accommodate for the urban heat island effect. Or we work with adjusting the data to accommodate for the urban heat island effect and you complain that the work is tampered with. There's no winning with you people so we work with adjusting for the urban heat island effect because it produces more accurate results.