Gore Losing the War on Global Warming - Page 5

gmb92 · #41 (**permalink**) 01-21-2009, 11:41 PM

Rasmussen polls tend to skew to the right and polls on global warming taken in January (during a cold spell too) are going to be a bit skewed as well. That said, there has always been an unfortunate disconnect between the science and the general public.

A recent study published in EOS covers this:

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change:

Key conclusion:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

<IF> Marius · #42 (**permalink**) 01-22-2009, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

The terms "global warming" and "climate change" do mean different things, but they both can generally be used to describe the same phenomena. Basically - anthropogenic emissions are causing global warming - and global warming cause climate change.

No, actually they do not. You may want to use them synonymously for political or ideological reasons, but this is a scientific debate regardless of which political or ideological side wants to twist it to suite their views.

Global Warming is not what is occurring. The world isn't globally warming, we would not be seeing lowering temperatures in areas if this were true. Nor would we see temperature shifts in areas previous designated as warming or cooling.

It is called Climate Change. Global Warming is the hypothesis presented in last few decades before the current shift to Climate Change hypothesis occurred.

I'm sorry, but it is not scientific to attribute new transitions to a previous hypothesis if those transitions contradict it.

Its "Global Warming, except for those areas around the globe it is cooling" is a pointless political framing attempt. Not science.

In fact, Global Cooling itself can just as easily be inserted with your faulty logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

And because "climate" is actually driven to a great extent by the temperature differentials in the oceans and air - climate change due to to global warming can of course result in cooler surface temperatures in some instances.

Climate change can result in cooler surface temperatures, not global warming.

Again, you are just inserting 'Global Warming' for any change that occurs. Even if that change contradicts the term "Global Warming".

Global climate fluctuates and changes, various changes in various areas of that climate will effect and change others.

Which is why it is called Global Climate Change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

The point is, the term "climate change" in relation to anthropogenic emissions has been used for well over 20 years - it is not some "new name" for "global warming" as suggested by the poster I was responding to.

Yes, you are correct, it has been used roughly for 20 years. Then for a short time, as we began to see fluctuation temperatures where warming should have occurred by the previous model, it instead began being called Global Cooling.

It took a short time after that to refer to it as Global Climate Change, as knowledge of how our worlds weather and climate occur ed became apparent.

The problem then occurred, as you yourself have quite clearly shown, ideologically where media and supporters/dissenters viewed it. For decades the "Global Warming" movement was called just that, the sudden shift away from a scientifically lacking hypothesis to the more refined Climate Change caused problems. As you show.

You want to support Global Warming? Go for it. But if you want to describe the hypothesis of Climate Change as "Global Warming", then keep it out of the scientific debate. Which this is. Warming is occurring in some areas, not globally, cooling areas are also occurring, as it reflects the interacting climate of this world, to call the entire hypothesised occurrence a single fluctuations that isn't controlling the entirety of the occurrence because you have lost/gained support is political framing.

Political framing has no place in scientific debate.

bugalugs · #43 (**permalink**) 01-22-2009, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by <IF> Marius

No, actually they do not. You may want to use them synonymously for political or ideological reasons, but this is a scientific debate regardless of which political or ideological side wants to twist it to suite their views.

Global Warming is not what is occurring. The world isn't globally warming, we would not be seeing lowering temperatures in areas if this were true. Nor would we see temperature shifts in areas previous designated as warming or cooling.

It is called Climate Change. Global Warming is the hypothesis presented in last few decades before the current shift to Climate Change hypothesis occurred.

I'm sorry, but it is not scientific to attribute new transitions to a previous hypothesis if those transitions contradict it.

Its "Global Warming, except for those areas around the globe it is cooling" is a pointless political framing attempt. Not science.

In fact, Global Cooling itself can just as easily be inserted with your faulty logic.

Climate change can result in cooler surface temperatures, not global warming.

Again, you are just inserting 'Global Warming' for any change that occurs. Even if that change contradicts the term "Global Warming".

Global climate fluctuates and changes, various changes in various areas of that climate will effect and change others.

Which is why it is called Global Climate Change.

Yes, you are correct, it has been used roughly for 20 years. Then for a short time, as we began to see fluctuation temperatures where warming should have occurred by the previous model, it instead began being called Global Cooling.

It took a short time after that to refer to it as Global Climate Change, as knowledge of how our worlds weather and climate occur ed became apparent.

The problem then occurred, as you yourself have quite clearly shown, ideologically where media and supporters/dissenters viewed it. For decades the "Global Warming" movement was called just that, the sudden shift away from a scientifically lacking hypothesis to the more refined Climate Change caused problems. As you show.

You want to support Global Warming? Go for it. But if you want to describe the hypothesis of Climate Change as "Global Warming", then keep it out of the scientific debate. Which this is. Warming is occurring in some areas, not globally, cooling areas are also occurring, as it reflects the interacting climate of this world, to call the entire hypothesised occurrence a single fluctuations that isn't controlling the entirety of the occurrence because you have lost/gained support is political framing.

Political framing has no place in scientific debate.

Errrr...whatever. Excuse me for not providing a detailed response - but that is pretty much a load of bollocks.

Some clown elsewhere tried to pretend that "global warming" has suddenly changed to "climate change". That is nonsense.

"Climate change" is the correct term.

"Global warming" is the term used often in the media. It is not a technical term - but it is not necessarily wrong.

Anthropogenic emissions are causing the globe to warm - hence "global warming". This planetary warming impacts upon climate. Climate is driven by a lot of things - eg. ocean currents, albedo effects, winds etc. That is "global warming" may cause some places to actually get cooler.

Call it "Bruce" if you like - I really couldn't give a toss. Just try to learn a little bit about things before you go spouting crap.

Surfer Joe · #44 (**permalink**) 01-22-2009, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5

He won an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize, but a recent poll suggests the Global Warmingist-in-Chief Al Gore is losing his propaganda war to convince Americans carbon dioxide is destroying the planet.

You know, I don’t really blame the climate change deniers for their appalling ignorance, but this sort of stuff is utter nonsense.

After 8 years of being fed fundamentalist propaganda against science, with assaults on evolution, genetic research and even reason itself through the distortion and disparagement of the scientific method, it’s no wonder that the people who supported Bush have also swallowed his administration’s cynical approach toward climate change.

As usual, the motives are venal and designed to help their financial supporters, but they hide behind misinformation and distortion to confuse the public and play childish partisan games like attacking Gore rather than telling the public the real reason for their antagonism toward inconvenient truths.

The same happened in Iraq. They go in to grab the oil and establish military control over a region, but they couch their imperial ambitions with narcotic phrases like bringing freedom and democracy to others. As usual, the more mindless of the Bush supporters buy into the lies, and support yet another crap policy pushed by Bush.

President Obama said it clearly that we will no longer take such a backward and unscientific approach to scientific issues, so I imagine that those with views such as the ones in this thread will find themselves marginalized and exposed for promoting medieval thinking, and hopefully embarrassed into getting a clue.

Quote:

The Earth's lone holdout to climate change, Antarctica, is actually warming, says a new study in today's edition of the journal Nature.
Scientists had long thought that while some isolated parts of Antarctica had been warming, much of the continent had been cooling over the past 50 years. But the new analysis found that since 1957, when measured as a whole, the continent's temperature has risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit .
"The thing you hear all the time is that Antarctica is cooling — and that's not the case," says study lead author Eric Steig, a University of Washington professor of Earth and space sciences. "If anything, it's the reverse, but it's more complex than that. Antarctica isn't warming at the same rate everywhere."
Perhaps most troubling is that "a fairly large part of West Antarctica is warming more than we realized," says study co-author Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University.Scientists say West Antarctica is the ice sheet most susceptible to a possible collapse in the future due to warming global temperatures. If the ice sheet collapsed, it would cause cataclysmic sea-level rise around the world.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...-warming_N.htm

stekim · #45 (**permalink**) 01-22-2009, 05:35 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...vey/index.html

Quote:

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and one of the survey's authors.

"Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

Which poll should be taken more seriously? One when they ask random people who likely know very little about it, or one where they ask people considered to be experts in the field? Tough question.

JavaBlack · #46 (**permalink**) 01-22-2009, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stekim

Which poll should be taken more seriously? One when they ask random people who likely know very little about it, or one where they ask people considered to be experts in the field? Tough question.

Obviously the random people. We all know Nature is a democracy.
Now come on, guys, get clappin'! We're gonna need all the faeries we can get to help turn this global warming around!

White Doors · #47 (**permalink**) 01-22-2009, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

Errrr...whatever. Excuse me for not providing a detailed response - but that is pretty much a load of bollocks.

Some clown elsewhere tried to pretend that "global warming" has suddenly changed to "climate change". That is nonsense.

"Climate change" is the correct term.

"Global warming" is the term used often in the media. It is not a technical term - but it is not necessarily wrong.

Anthropogenic emissions are causing the globe to warm - hence "global warming". This planetary warming impacts upon climate. Climate is driven by a lot of things - eg. ocean currents, albedo effects, winds etc. That is "global warming" may cause some places to actually get cooler.

Call it "Bruce" if you like - I really couldn't give a toss. Just try to learn a little bit about things before you go spouting crap.

Interesting.

Since you are obviously very correct on this issue and also very angry about this issue perhaps you could explain two things to the board:

1) Why has global warming stopped since 1998? I mean, if Carbon Dioxide was the main driver of climate change, shouldn't at least ONE of the years since 1998 been warmer?

And 2) Why has the ice-core data shown that CO2 levels rose in the past AFTER the globe warmed up?
Would that not indicate that CO2 is a symptom of a warmer planet and not a driver of said warming?

Thanks!

BigRed · #48 (**permalink**) 01-22-2009, 08:27 AM

Why do we have to be at 'war' with everything anyways?

Gore should be losing this 'war' because there is no 'war' to fight. An imaginary one I suppose, but that'll cost real dollars.

Yeshua_Lives · #49 (**permalink**) 01-22-2009, 10:22 AM

No need to fear...should hopefully see those 5 million Green Jobs soon to help prevent Global Warming...just imagine when you drive through the United States...solar energy everywhere...huge wind turbine farms throughout the land...solar powered cars...it's gonna be grand.

+++

KSigMason · #50 (**permalink**) 01-22-2009, 12:59 PM

I have a trouble keeping up because one decade it cooling and warming. Something changes and all of a sudden the sky is falling. Excuse me if I don't jump in on this fad. Keep drinking the Gore kool aid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

And what causes these " cycles with cooling and warming sessions."?

It's a natural cycle. The sun's cycle, Earth has it's own cycles. Do some research on historical climate & weather patterns, not just a few decades ago, but back in the day of dinosaurs to early man. I'm just curious how can you explain the heating and cooling patterns of the past? Man wasn't always around then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

And what do " some fanatics believe"? Why don't you tell us.

I've been told by some that said if man were not alive there would be no global warming...those kind of nuts. The kind of nuts that will take the word of Gore over a climatologist. When I went to school I went through a weather class and the instructor, who worked for the USAF and NASA, told me Gore was full of crap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugalugs

Really?!?! Which volcano is this? What is its name? When did this happen? What are these toxins? Does this relate in any way to anthropogenic CO2 emissions - or did you just make it up because you wanted to make a contribution to a subject you simply don't understand?

And yet you have posted nothing to prove otherwise. Your just taking the word of a hack.

Wait!? Are you saying that volcanoes don't spew out toxins? Talk about speaking out your butt. Volcanoes release SO2, Cl2, HCl, H2o, Ash, and CO2 into the atmosphere. Mount Kilauea is what I'm talking about, my friend studied it, and is reported to have been getting more active.

The Effects of Volcanoes

Hawaii Volcano Park Closes, Due To Toxic Fog

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The business of man made global warming CEO Al Gore	Oxymoron	Environment & Conservation	0	12-31-2008 06:13 PM
Global Warming	Southpaw	Humor & Satire	0	10-15-2008 10:31 PM
Al Gore Global Hypocrite	Professor Peabody	Current Events	100	07-01-2008 11:26 PM
Al Gore Gets Set to Launch New Global Warming Ad Campaign [TheDemoMemo]	KnowBlog	Political Blogs	1	03-31-2008 06:16 AM
Review of Gore Global Warming movie "An Inconvenient Truth"	Americanexpat	Current Events	69	06-29-2006 08:30 PM