• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Al Gore ... an inconvenient truth to his lies.

bawk bawk bawk - same chicken little screeching


We are still coming out of the last ice age, any warming is GOOD!

You want all of Canada being ground to fine dust under ANOTHER mile and half of ice?

We're due


ice_age9.jpg



It's coming, get on your knees and pray for all the warming we can get



glacial_maximum_map2.jpg
 
That's not the claim being made. It says CO2 levels in the year 2000 would be 25% more than current levels(1969).

The sea level rise is mentioned in the next sentence as a future consequence NOT that it would happen in 2000.

But hey, keep being stupid. Go with your strengths I like to say.

Weak. 10 ft. sea level rise is offered as a direct consequence.
 
Yes it is a direct consequence, but there is a delay. Right now the weather extremes we are seeing are from emissions produced in the 70's
Which is it - hotter Earth surface temperature and rising sea levels or "weather extremes". For ***** sake you should hear yourselves. "Yes, those things will happen, and until they do you will see weather extremes, and the current weather extremes, unlike every other weather extreme in the history of the planet, will be caused by emissions from the 70's.".
 
'Extreme' weather is anything on either side of a climate controlled 72 degrees, says the cubicle generation - they want to control the weather with a thermostat.

What is the earth's correct temperature?

Rain, snow, warm cold - it's ALL EXTREME IF YOU SCREAM IT LOUD ENOUGH!!!
 
From the warmists' favorite website - http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/04...s-either-declining-or-at-or-near-record-lows/

Extreme Weather: Scientist to Congress in 2017: ‘No evidence’ that hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes are increasing – Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. of University of Colorado

Tornadoes: NOAA Tornado data revealing 2016 as ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ and below average for 5th year in a row

Hurricanes: 1) Inconvenient NOAA report: ‘It is premature to conclude (AGW has) already had a detectable impact on’ hurricanes & 2) NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major (Cat 3+) Hurricane Strike & 3) 30 peer-reviewed scientific papers reveal the lack of connection between hurricanes & ‘global warming’

Floods: ‘Floods are not increasing’: Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. slams ‘global warming’ link to floods & extreme weather – How does media ‘get away with this?’ – Pielke Jr. on how extreme weather is NOT getting worse: ‘Flood disasters are sharply down. U.S. floods not increasing either.’ “Floods suck when they occur. The good news is U.S. flood damage is sharply down over 70 years,” Pielke explained.

Heavy Rains: 1000 year rainfall study suggests droughts and floods used to be longer, worse

Extreme weather used to be blamed on ‘global cooling’ in the 1970s and early 80s Flashback NOAA 1974: ‘Extreme weather events blamed on global cooling’ – NOAA October 1974: ‘Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend and changes in atmospheric circulation which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world’

Funny stuff. Links to original articles on the original page.
 
Which is it - hotter Earth surface temperature and rising sea levels or "weather extremes". For ***** sake you should hear yourselves. "Yes, those things will happen, and until they do you will see weather extremes, and the current weather extremes, unlike every other weather extreme in the history of the planet, will be caused by emissions from the 70's.".


Derrrrrpppp.

In the 70's the prevailing science was that pollution would cause global.........




cooling.


As others here have shown.

Elfiepolo is just a paid shill, receiving email prose and doing the libtard cut and past thing.
 
And like I said before, but your tiny agenda driven brain won't process; what Al Gore does or doesn't do in his own life has no bearing on climate science.

Fraud - "a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities."

Fraud - "deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right"

Fraud - "an act of deceiving or misrepresenting"

Yep, fits elftardPoloLiar and Algore to a tee.
 
Derrrrrpppp.

In the 70's the prevailing science was that pollution would cause global.........




cooling.


As others here have shown.

Elfiepolo is just a paid shill, receiving email prose and doing the libtard cut and past thing.

Because in the 70's we had a few bad winters in a row so naturally it was a trend that would go on forever. Now we have a few hot summers (this is debatable) so it's a trend that will go on forever.
I remember taking driver's ed in 1977. It was like learning to drive in friggen' Antarctica.
 
Derrrrrpppp.

In the 70's the prevailing science was that pollution would cause global.........




cooling.


As others here have shown.

Elfiepolo is just a paid shill, receiving email prose and doing the libtard cut and past thing.

No, that wasn't the prevailing science Canadian bacon.

IIRC about 11% of all peer reviewed papers in the 70's predicted cooling.

As time went on that number kept going down to where it sits today; practically 0.

That's how science works: the facts lead the way, and knowledge is built upon knowledge.
 
Because in the 70's we had a few bad winters in a row so naturally it was a trend that would go on forever. Now we have a few hot summers (this is debatable) so it's a trend that will go on forever.
I remember taking driver's ed in 1977. It was like learning to drive in friggen' Antarctica.

No it's not debatable dumbass......Jesus Christ.
 
No, that wasn't the prevailing science Canadian bacon.

IIRC about 11% of all peer reviewed papers in the 70's predicted cooling.

As time went on that number kept going down to where it sits today; practically 0.

That's how science works: the facts lead the way, and knowledge is built upon knowledge.

I stand corrected, it's 10%

1970s_papers.gif


GlobalCooling.JPG
 
No, that wasn't the prevailing science Canadian bacon.

IIRC about 11% of all peer reviewed papers in the 70's predicted cooling.

As time went on that number kept going down to where it sits today; practically 0.

That's how science works: the facts lead the way, and knowledge is built upon knowledge.
Facts?LOL! You all keep making up your own facts!
 
I stand corrected, it's 10%

1970s_papers.gif


GlobalCooling.JPG

And we've already provided you with facts in other threads about how the majority of scientific writings and studies that pointed to global cooling were white washed.

SMH.

Keep on banging your drum Elftard, being a lemming for those that would put 99.97% of the world into abject poverty for their gain.

Massive Cover-Up Exposed: Lying Alarmists Rebranded 70s Global Cooling Scare as a Myth

Everyone knows that before the global warming scare began in the 1980s, scientists were much more worried about global cooling and the coming ice age.
At least everybody did till a cabal of lying climate alarmists – one then a senior administrator at NOAA, now a president at the World Meteorological Association – hijacked Wikipedia, published a lying paper, and rewrote history by painting the 1970s Global Cooling Scare as an urban myth.

Now the full extent of these activists’ skullduggery has been uncovered by researcher Kenneth Richard, writing at No Tricks Zone.

Richard shows that during the 1960s and 1970s, there was an 86 percent scientific consensus that the planet was on a cooling path. But this was airbrushed out of history so successfully that even now if you do a Google search on “70s global cooling scare” the top results claim it never really happened.

...(220 out of 264) supported the cooling thesis

William Connolley, a Green party member – then working for the British Antarctic Survey – was able to abuse his Wikipedia administrator status by rewriting thousands of Wikipedia articles in order to give them the ‘correct’ alarmist spin. This scandal was exposed by Lawrence Solomon in the National Post.

"All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand.

When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear."

You can read the rest. I posted from different sources before. I can continue to provide factual evidence from others.

You continue to chirp and harp and worry your little *** off over this non-hysteria, hysteria.
 
LMAO. Climate change is nothing more than libtards trying to use the weather to grab tax dollars. Nothing more. End of story.

It's 71F and sunny here right now. High of 83, Low of 65. Pretty nice day.
 
LMAO. Climate change is nothing more than libtards trying to use the weather to grab tax dollars. Nothing more. End of story.

It's 71F and sunny here right now. High of 83, Low of 65. Pretty nice day.

It's August here in MD, outside DC. Typically this time of year we are sweltering in 90+ degrees and 90+ humidity. DC is (I've heard anyway) the greenest large city in the country. We have a tremendous amount of trees and vegetation for a populated area. Being close to the Bay and the ocean, we get bad humidity. August is usually awful. Yet yesterday we turned our AC off.

So last night I enticed my wife to join me on the deck in the dark for an adult version of the "hokey pokey" and during the course of the entertainment she was heard to say the following:

"It's cold!"
"We need a blanket!"
"I am not removing my _____, I'll freeze!"

Global Warming. Gotta love it.

Or is it Climate Change?

Felt like the pending Ice Age....
 
Anybody who doubts what Tim wrote about Wikipedia is simply being willfully ignorant. Wikipedia has a proven track record of pushing AGW, and deleting any revisions or commentary to the main Wikipedia article that discusses AGW and questions the idea as to the nature and extent of "man-made climate change." Further, the site has removed numerous well-written articles that cite dozens of research articles discussing the well-documented problems with the climate models, issues relating to data manipulation, the work by McIntyre and McKittrick exposing Michael Mann's fraud, and on and on.

Elftard will of course reply, "Who cares, it's Wikipedia, not a scientific journal." Not so fast.

Many of the emails reveal strenuous efforts by the mainstream climate scientists to do what outside observers would regard as censoring their critics. And the correspondence raises awkward questions about the effectiveness of peer review – the supposed gold standard of scientific merit – and the operation of the UN's top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review

Mann once peer-reviewed his work ... himself.

At the time that Michael Mann’s hockey stick was chosen to be Figure 1 of the TAR summary for policy makers, Mann had just received his PhD. As many in the book note, the ink was not yet dry on his diploma. Yet, in addition, he was made one of the lead authors of the very section of TAR that presented his hockey stick (see figure 2.20). As a result it was up to him to validate his own work. In the words of Dr. Rob Van Dorland, an IPCC lead author:

“It is strange that the climate reconstruction of Mann passed both peer review rounds of the IPCC without anyone ever really having checked it.”


https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/a-disgrace-to-the-profession/
 
Anybody who doubts what Tim wrote about Wikipedia is simply being willfully ignorant. Wikipedia has a proven track record of pushing AGW, and deleting any revisions or commentary to the main Wikipedia article that discusses AGW and questions the idea as to the nature and extent of "man-made climate change." Further, the site has removed numerous well-written articles that cite dozens of research articles discussing the well-documented problems with the climate models, issues relating to data manipulation, the work by McIntyre and McKittrick exposing Michael Mann's fraud, and on and on.

Elftard will of course reply, "Who cares, it's Wikipedia, not a scientific journal." Not so fast.

Many of the emails reveal strenuous efforts by the mainstream climate scientists to do what outside observers would regard as censoring their critics. And the correspondence raises awkward questions about the effectiveness of peer review – the supposed gold standard of scientific merit – and the operation of the UN's top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review

Mann once peer-reviewed his work ... himself.

At the time that Michael Mann’s hockey stick was chosen to be Figure 1 of the TAR summary for policy makers, Mann had just received his PhD. As many in the book note, the ink was not yet dry on his diploma. Yet, in addition, he was made one of the lead authors of the very section of TAR that presented his hockey stick (see figure 2.20). As a result it was up to him to validate his own work. In the words of Dr. Rob Van Dorland, an IPCC lead author:

“It is strange that the climate reconstruction of Mann passed both peer review rounds of the IPCC without anyone ever really having checked it.”


https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/a-disgrace-to-the-profession/

Yeah it's that evil Mike Mann. And luckily for deniers science depends on repeatability of claims.....right deniers?

And no other scientists can come to the same conclusion .......right deniers?
NH_Temp_Reconstruction.gif


IT'S A PLOT! FAKE GRAPHS! FAKE SCIENTISTS! BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI!
 
Yeah it's that evil Mike Mann. And luckily for deniers science depends on repeatability of claims.....right deniers?

And no other scientists can come to the same conclusion .......right deniers?
NH_Temp_Reconstruction.gif


IT'S A PLOT! FAKE GRAPHS! FAKE SCIENTISTS! BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI!

honeybunches, do you honestly, HONESTLY believe that a helicopter soccer mom driving a older model Chevy Suburban to drop off her spawn at school and sitting in the dropoff lane for 20-30 minutes, idling and contributing to the greenhouse effect, is going to stop and how much more taxes need to be raised to hinder, how many celebrities need to cease criss-crossing the globe in their private jets to ...
Scientists were finding answers to the puzzle of what caused ice ages in the past: variations in earth’s orbit.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2...th-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/
 
Top