IceAge_Jon

Just another news story on Al Gore's scary lies : The Daily Mail , UK Schools must warn of Gore climate film bias Last updated at 17:36pm on 3rd October 2007 Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been called unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and 'sentimental mush'. Schools will have to issue a warning before they show pupils Al Gore's controversial film about global warming, a judge indicated yesterday. The move follows a High Court action by a father who accused the Government of 'brainwashing' children with propaganda by showing it in the classroom. Stewart Dimmock said the former U.S. Vice-President's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, is unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and 'sentimental mush'. He wants the video banned after it was distributed with four other short films to 3,500 schools in February. Mr Justice Burton is due to deliver a ruling on the case next week, but yesterday he said he would be saying that Gore's Oscar-winning film does promote 'partisan political views'. This means that teachers will have to warn pupils that there are other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film. He said: 'The result is I will be declaring that, with the guidance as now amended, it will not be unlawful for the film to be shown.'

The Founder of The Weather Channel speaks out : By John Coleman It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus. Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minute documentary segment. I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it. I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming. In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend. So they dont do enough to make difference but they are incredibly important, I got it.... Yes it has read your own web page you or your friend posted... "Global warming refers to the average increase in the global mean surface temperature of the Earth. The Earth has warmed by about 1.0 degree F since the late 19th century. See the EPA website" The one degree over any period of 100 years with natural changes back and forth is meaningless.... the temperature does not stay at 1 degree warmer for all time in the future as we WILL have a natural cooling or Ice Age again. And during that 30-40 year period or 5,000 year period our temps will drop from 1 to 5 degrees. I did not say they have classified water vapor as a pollutant but that they are trying to do it. http://www.ecoenquirer.com/EPA-water-vapor.htm

So then not planting new trees or removing the rain forests, doesnt matter like your leaders say causes "global Warming"? You cant have it both ways Originally Posted by IceAge_Jon But it is such a small amount of the greenhouse gases because it is heavier than O2. Facts in climate science that everyone knows but you. I posted the numbers already ....Co2 is only 3.62% of all the grreenhouse gas and man's contributing to that is only 3.22% of the 3.62% of all greenhouse gas, then the effect of Co2 isnt anything of only 0.117% of all grreenhouse effect. The point is, since there was almost no warming over the last 100 years with all the changes back and forth ...there just sint any reason to worry about Co2 as a greenhouse gas.... everyone knows this yet few on your side have the guts to admit they are all wrong. this is why your EPA is now going after water vapor, trying to call it a "pollutant" .... If you had any honest people on your side we wouldnt have to have this wasteful discussion about Co2 and cars and cows ..cause it doesnt do anything.... You want us to lower the Co2 greenhouse effect 25% less of .0.117%? The comparison to Co2 and a poison gas is plain ignorance...C02 is a natural element.... its been here since the earth was created or soon after... for billions and billions of years ...and though if you breathe pure Co2 it will smother you... it isnt a pollutant at all ..ask the plant in your window Originally Posted by IceAge_Jon Yes most Co2 stays near the surface and is absorbed by the oceans and tree and plants and even settles in some caves. Some is kicked up into the upper atmosphere along with other elements. I was accurate in general as the surface includes all water surface which is most of the planet. And the half that goes into the atmosphere, both lower and upper that man is blamed for , even seems like less when you know that 50% is absorbed by plants and the oceans... the claim that the oceans can suffer is extremism as the Co2 levels in nature have always caused this carbonic acid process. It is not a powerful acid... the process even takes place in the breathing process of all mammals. The salts of carbonic acids are bicarbonates. It hasnt hurt the oceans when levels of natural C02 have been higher at times for millions of years. Your webpage was telling as this comes from those who believe in this man made global warming yet they are the ones who quote me, as the warming since the 1900's has been only 1 degree F or .06C ..like I have said. We have gone through a cooling period before 1900 then a warming from 1900 to 1940 with the hottest year on U.S. record being 1934. Then a cooling from 1940 to 1980 and during the 1970's we heard these same environmental activists claim we were going to cause the Ice Age. Then from 1980 we started into the warming we have been in since. The way the Eco-activists have covered their behinds as they know full well we are heading into the next cooling and they want to get this crap done so they can say they caused the change to the cooling by getting us out of our autos. Luckily, nature is on its own track and they will look like fools. Well not really... they will say just because THEY talked about it , they changed the world climate. Something neat to look at is this site with state temperature records and you can see how many of the temps fit within the natural climate changes we have had since we started keeping such records. http://ggweather.com/climate/extremes_us.htm One telling phrase from your post is "Many scientists predict This is the whole basis for the Global Warming Hoax ...prediction of future weather temps based on computer modelling using imaginary Co2 senarios to cause a ceratin outcome. This is the only group of scientists who believe in this Hoax and push it too all their media sources on the left. Those original computer models were pushed out 100 years just to make a wild claim seem more significant. But reality and facts and history of the planet show another story completely. If there isnt any effect from the cow, car or Co2 then they have lost the whole ballgame.

Some of you seem to think Co2 and Cars and Cows dont have anything to do with Global Warming? Because you keep saying everything you dont agree with about Global warming said here is irrelevant. Hmmm Why dont you bring on the facts if you believe cars cause global warming. Yes most Co2 stays near the surface and is absorbed by the oceans and tree and plants and even settles in some caves. Some is kicked up into the upper atmosphere along with other elements. But it is such a small amount of the greenhouse gases because it is heavier than O2. Also most of it comes from the oceans and like I said is absorbed back into the oceans.

"March 31, 2005 A spike in the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere between 2001 and 2003 appears to be a temporary phenomenon and apparently does not indicate a quickening build-up of the gas in the atmosphere, according to an analysis by NOAA climate experts. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is released into the atmosphere by the burning of wood, coal, oil and gas. Increases in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere are of special interest to scientists because carbon dioxide is a significant heat-trapping greenhouse gas." This article from NOAA is from Global Warming believers at NOAA, however they have to admit they are wrong sometimes. It shows that Co2 can change levels all the time. It does matter that is was in 2005 because it takes they time to figure out the truth. Also from swanson The original "1990 report of the influential U.N. Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or had published related articles. That was back in 1990 when they started the scientists signing the petition to show most scientists dont follow the belief in the false theory of man causing climate warming. But now they have even more scientists who dont believe in man causing climate warming than back then... And guess what you dont have any proof you have "consensus" of Man causing Global Warming..... there is no consensus at all.... So YOU try prove it....

We DO know alot about natural climate and we should learn more before we go wild with "the sky is falling" claims. I guess you dont know much and maybe thats why you believe only man can warm the planet. Consensus? "That there is no scientific consensus of a global-warming threat is indicated by surveys of active scientists. A November 1991 Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union found that only 19 percent of those polled believed that human-induced global warming has occurred." "That same year, Greenpeace International surveyed 400 scientists who had worked on the 1990 report of the influential U.N. Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or had published related articles. Asked whether current policies might instigate a runaway greenhouse effect, only 13 percent of the 113 respondents said it was “probable” and 32 percent “possible.” But 47 percent said “probably not”—far from a consensus." "In recent years, research on global climate change has led even more scientists to doubt that global warming is upon us or that it would soon bring disaster (Science, May 16, 1997). Yet these doubts are characteristically downplayed in IPCC reports. While the body of the IPCC’s 800-page, 1996 report, The Science of Climate Change, mentioned some doubts (albeit cryptically), the report’s much-publicized, politically approved Summary for Policymakers did not. This gave the false impression that all 2000-plus scientists who contributed to (or had their work cited in) the report alsosupported the view that man-made global warming was occurring or posed a credible threat. The IPCC report even indicated that the scientists who reviewed and commented on earlier drafts endorsed the report—whether their comments on the drafts were positive or negative." Oregon Petition From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Oregon Petition is the name commonly given to a petition opposed to the Kyoto protocol, organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) between 1999 and 2001. During this period the United States was negotiating with other countries on implementation of the protocol before the Bush administration withdrew from the process in 2001.[1] Former U.S. National Academy of Sciences President Frederick Seitz wrote a cover letter endorsing the petition. The Oregon Petition was the fourth, and by the far the largest, of five prominent efforts claimed to show that a scientific consensus does not exist on the subject of global warming, following the 1992 Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming, the Heidelberg Declaration and the Leipzig Declaration. The petition site asserts that the number of signatures received is 19,000.[2] The petition was circulated again in October 2007 The text of the petition (which was on a reply card) reads, in its entirety:[3] “ We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. ” Now this petition has 20,000 signatures. Despite lies that it doesnt exist. Or it was made up by some scientist. It doesnt matter how many are on each side, since no science is made up by a vote. If it was, we never went the the moon. Because they wouldnt know for sure that the rocket would get there. They had to have real science and facts not unproven theory. They had to have plenty of tests and near perfect weather info, and so much real science, not just theory. And man-made Global warming is not fact, it is at best a theory with no proof. We know that nature changes the climate all the time. So just because some bored scientists who liked computer modelling pretended that mans Co2 might cause a tiny bit of warming air temp went wild trying to make that happen leaving out all natural facts , like the change in jet streams and different El Nino years, and more things they didnt know about 10 years ago when they made this up saying "in 50 years we might be 1 degree warmer." They were obviously wrong when they didnt predict the excellerated Arctic melting now. And just recently changed their minds that man must have put out 300 times more Co2 to make the Arctic melt. That of course is just silly. the .0017 degree is "man's" contribution to the 100 years of .06 C degree warming I like you to try to change your house heat just 0.0017 degree... Methane is relevant since it isnt Co2 that comes from cows that has been called a problem. Someone didnt know the difference so it has to be pointed out a few times. I seen some get it mixed up that Co2 comes from termites. It is methane that is a problem from ants, termites and roaches. I bet a consensus would say get rid of these pests and lower the amount of methane greenhouse gases. Yes I can back up that ice cores have shown that the Co2 levels increases up to 800 years after the warming periods. Something that Al Gore falsely presented in his movie. And one reason why a judge in England blocked his movie from schools as factual science. the story here .... http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.jsp http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659

Yes swanson, the global warming theory side seems to think warming is the worst thing, as if they just got back from hell. I rather think we would do better in warmer climate than in the next coming ice age. Don't frown, there will be another ice age. There has been all through history of the planet. We are at the end of the warming since the last 20,,000 year ice age. But within that time we know a few times when the milder warming slipped back into colder times. Perhaps super volcanic activity, or the earth's orbit, http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/cli_sun.htmlor some other extreme natural process caused this. We know that Co2 levels become higher after a warming period, as much as 800 years later. And there doesnt seem to be a furthering to warmer climate after the higher Co2 levels from nature. These details were found in studies of ice cores. It seems that the Co2 increase does not cause any significant warming. So we might try to deal with methane? Why wasnt this Al Gore's target? Because he isnt interested in science, he wants a political outcome. But swanson you're right on one thing, who is going to say what the perfect temperature is? How would we get to a certain temp? And who will decide how to get the whole earth to that temperature (going against nature)? The truth is we have nothing to worry about with the climate. We do have to worry about a group who has definate plans for a money and power grab with the claim of Man-made Global Warming. . If you want to know the truth "Global Warming" theory isnt about the greenhouse effect at all...it has always been a pseudo-nym for environmentalism. But I think the claims that we are warming the climate and killing polar bears and every other living creature, causing extreme weather and super hurricanes, and on and on are all tied to the Co2 in the greenhouse. I know the GW pushers want to say its about throwing a piece of paper on the highway. But real science has to be used when they make wild claims. Ok so Al Gore's movie has been dumped as it contains no real science but he and his folowers still make the same claims and continue to say he has some consensus in science...when he doesnt have any such thing. There's far more science that proves his claims wrong and more scientists who dont believe the claim of man-made Global warming. But science isnt up for a vote ...you cannot vote for a theory and make it true. It has to be proven and no one has proven that anything man has done warms the earth's climate. We dont even know all about natural causes and we have more facts on natural climate change than the other side has in their theory. I just think alot of people need to be educated about nature and how many variables there are in nature's climate. We cannot escape the next ice age with a measly .0017 degree of warming.

Thank you Jackson, I have an opinion about the cow and car and C02..sort of....as some have pointed out Cows put out more Methane than C02. They are part of man's Co2 in the figures up above, but is not enough to change weather like the hot southern summer this year. Only the jet stream was changed. That is because of deep water in oceans coming up to the surface which causes El Nino. However, last year El Nino went farther north and may have left more warm water behind as it left. Or the POD Pacific Decadal Oscillation is at work. http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ and has been part of this. This would have pushed the jet stream farther north and other areas got more precipitation and clouds than the South. My opinion is that this warmer water causes some of or most of the Arctic melting. We will see some of the Arctic come back during winter. But it has been changing forever, melting then the ice comes back. The Arctic cover of ice isnt very thick. So nature has changed it often over million of years. Since the Arctic air temps are too cold to melt ice, most melting comes from water temps. Also you can imagine if the Arctic melts thru we will have a new big ocean that has a another weather system that flows down thru the northern hemisphere, not only causing more snow and ice cover it eventually fills and covers the whole Arctic again. But we may end up with another little ice age over the northern Hemisphere when this whole natural process takes place. That may be sooner than you think. Okay back to Car Co2, its just not a pollutant like they want to claim. It's one of the elements! Without it life would not exist. The small amount man puts into the upper atmosphere can only have caused .0017 of one degree of warming in the last 100 years. But one natural event would wipe that .0017 degree out in just one of those 100 years. We cannot effect the climate temperature unless we control the sun. oceans, and clouds. One thing I have to warn too...climate is a collection of at least 30 years. It is not one summer in one year in one small area of one country. It isnt a 5 year trend or a 10 year trend. It isnt drought conditions. We found that the temperature is quite level if we collect 100 years of record. So dont be thinking you can chnge the summer to winter by changing to an electric car. Its good to be conservative with resources we use, but it won't change the climate so dont be fooled by the claims of Al Gore and his followers.

Im new here, and I can see that the liberal minds have already started to change the debate away from the facts about Climate and Co2. Ive found that it really helps when people stick to the science on this topic. First of all, all we are talking about is a .06 C degree warming over the last 100 years. That is what the "global warming" side has claimed and I'll just agree for now. As far as the green house effect that has made the planet livable, without it we would have a frozen planet with virtually no life. The greenhouse "effect" is made up of 95% water vapor, 3.62% of Co2, .360% methane, .950% of Nitrous Oxide, and .072% of other gases. Each gas has its own properties and ability to do its job as a greenhouse gas. Next we apply the % of potency to each gas. Such as methane is 21 times more effective than Co2, nitrous oxide is 310 times the potency of Co2. This is the properties of each gas (heat retention potency) Co2 with a value of 1 = 72.369% of 5% Methane with a value of 21 = 7.199% of 5% Nitrous oxide with a value of 310 = 19.000% 0f 5% (Other gases with variable values) =1.432% of 5% The man made contributions to the greenhouse gasses are: Water Vapor 0.001% Co2 3.225% of all Co2 Methane 18.338% of all Methane Nitrous oxide 4.933% of all nitrous oxide Other gases 65.711% ofall other gases Then you must figure man's actual contribution to the "effect" If you can figure this out great, or look over the graphs and info here: http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html