Finally proof Al Gore is a r****d.?

Question

Climate scientist Noel Keenlyside, leading a team from Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, for the first time entered verifiable data on ocean circulation cycles into one of the U. N.'s climate supercomputers, and the machine spit out a projection that there will be no more warming for the foreseeable future.

Less well-known is that global temperatures have already been falling for a decade. All of which means, that by 2015 or 2020, when warming is expected to resume, we will have had nearly 20 years of fairly steady cooling.

Saints of the new climate religion, such as Al Gore, have stated that eight of the 10 years since 1998 are the warmest on record. Even if that were true, none has been as warm as 1998, which means the trend of the past decade has been downward, not upward.

Last year, for instance, saw a drop in the global average temperature of nearly 0.7 degrees C (the largest single-year movement).

Answer 1

I don't think so.  He won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to stop climate change.  He also graduated from Harvard *** Laude.

I will have to spell the name of his degree wrong, so it won't be deleted: Kum Laude.

Answer 2

Al Gore may or may not be a r****d, as you say.  I have no idea about that.  But I firmly believe that he is deliberately out to lie and scam us over this global warming hoax.

Politicians who intentionally mislead others for gain (in this case it's financial) are scum in my opinion.  

It does show one thing: there are no lows, apparently, to which Al Gore wouldn't stoop for personal profit.

Answer 3

Let's play find the mistakes!

Your first mistake occurs on sentence 1, paragraph 1. There is an assumption here that this particular climate software is 100% correct, whereas it is but one of thousands of such machines. Give me a good 40% figure, sourced by NOAA or NASA or the UN itself, and I might buy it. Also, if the warming will last but a mere 13 years, then it is foolish to say that this halts global warming, which itself has been going on since the industrial revolution in the 1850s.

Your second mistake occurs in sentences 2 & 3 (wow, first three!), paragraph 1. All graphs I have seen, even from the rightest of [somewhat] reliable sources (I'm including Fox here, if you want to go into that kind of argument), have concluded that the five year average, and the yearly average, have shown a general steady (even rapid) warming trend for the past 10 years. Also, 0.7 degrees Celsius in one year would be insane - you're looking more like 0.07 degrees.

Your third mistake occurs in sentences 1 & 2 of paragraph 2. The warmest global year on record was 2005 (sourced by NASA and NOAA; Google it. Also note that there is some debate over this, since the years were within a fraction of a tenth of a degree celsius), and the warmest US year on record was 2006. His "8/10" (the stated and correct figure being 9/10) statements was correct (see preceding parenthesis), and is verifiable. Al Gore is not a saint of any such religion; if it were a religion, he would be somewhat equivalent to Pat Robertson, only far less outspoken and much more gentle. There would be no "saints" in this "faith" - either an atheist knows more about religion than you or you haven't been reading the news enough for the past 10 years.

Your final mistake is on sentence 1, paragraph 3. You fail to account for similar (and much larger) statistical anomalies that occur almost every year. The jumps from 1998 down to 1999 and from 2001 up to 2002 were far larger.

Those error messages constitute your entire question.

Care to try again?

I can see by the thumbs down that some of you aren't exactly open to reality. Denial is bad for you, people.

Answer 4

The article published in Nature makes no such claims. It only says that natural effects will dampen the effects of global warming in the coming years.

Answer 5

I don't see what weather has to do with Gore. If you have something of a political nature to say, say it in the politics forum. We discuss science here.

I am not American. I don't base my views about the environment based on what politicians say. I don't care whether my views land me in the 'Gore camp', the 'Bush camp', or whatever other political camp you idiots get wet dreams about. The simple fact is that global temperatures are rising, and this is not a religion, this is a fact. A period of ten years is statistically insignificant and you cannot draw any conclusions from any trends between 1998 and 2008.

Answer 6

It amazes me that idiots can think they're smart when everything about them proves them wrong.

Answer 7

You needed any proof?   Al Gore is..

Puma, please watch your language here....

It doesn't matter what the observations are over just a few years,  given the relative of age of our earth.   Plus most of these hybrid theories do not take into account,  that the earth has mechanisms to adjust to change...

What is given as scientific fact, is anything but.   A scientist who is really seeking the truth,   would always and is always questioning the status quo.   How is global warming any different?   Is it a state religion,  and therefore we have to go on blind faith?   No,  as weather forecasters  and meteorologists,  we are obligated to look at everything with a wary eye.     Could be the difference in a hurricane hitting us dead on or not...  

Global warming types want us to accept blindly,  any edict or claim made by people with a vested interests,  such as the IPCC.

And Puma... you are no expert ... but you are a pseudo-

intellectual masquerading that you have knowlege of what you are talking about... it's superficial at best...