Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud

[eagl]

It's pretty funny how discussions of global warming always turn into half of the posts saying "yea but bush sucks!" and the other half "yea but this thread is about global warming, not the president".
 

[ROX]

John Coleman (founder of the weather channel) is one of the most brilliant weathermen EVER.  He was on channel 7 in Chicago, and I grew up watching him.

"It will get down to 32 degrees in the Loop, and down to 26 degrees in The Boonies"

That guy was a HOOT!

ROX

[Dago]

Dago, I voted for Bush in both elections. The GW my post referred to was Global Warming, not George W.

My apologies for misunderstanding.

[Dago]

John Coleman (founder of the weather channel) is one of the most brilliant weathermen EVER.  He was on channel 7 in Chicago, and I grew up watching him.

"It will get down to 32 degrees in the Loop, and down to 26 degrees in The Boonies"

That guy was a HOOT!

ROX

Yeah, same here.  He was entertaining and wore some gaudy jackets.    I met him briefly at the Gary Airport in about 1978.  He seemed like a jerk there.

[Hajo]

At least another sane voice in the debunking of a complete falsehood about man made global warming.

Mother Nature has changed Earths' temperature many times over the years and probably will continue to do so until our Sun supernovas.

Looks like those who are yelling "The Sky is falling the Sky is falling" are earning a few fraudulent dollars selling their fabricated fears.

Geez...in Ohio a new record was set in our area which is in the Great Lakes Snowbelt for inches of snow for the year.

And I have it on good authority that the Polar Icecap is just a frozen and just as large if not larger then it has been
and the mean temperature of the Earth has dropped a full one degree in the past year.

Al Gore should be wearing a Plaid Jacket and selling Volkswagons...he's be Salesman of the year for sure.

[Druss]

Funny, I feel the same way about Bush voters

Hey Flatbar! Who ARE you going to hate when Bush in no longer prez? Who will you hate about then? Just curious.
 

[lazs2]

Yep... so far.. it has been "far too complex" and "the debate is over" when it comes to our contribution to the climate of the planet.

We are too dumb and it is too important to debate.   I would love to see it brought out and both sides presented along with all the data to the public.   I would love to see em prove the math or... disprove it in front of the people of the world.   

I would like to see both sides get equal press and I would like to see someone on the side of man made global... anything.. predict what will happen next year.. 5 years.... using their computer models of just wishful thinking or even a crystal ball but show us how they predicted...

The hearings will no doubt last a year or more and at that time we can see how close the "the debate is over" crowd came to predicting how much hotter it will be..

If it is colder or the same or not as hot as they said...  we can have em make a new prediction that is in line with their doomsday scenario for the next year..  after they are wrong for a few years maybe we can just sue every single one of em for this whole fiasco.

What a concept.. make em pay for the damage they have done and the BS they spread.

To me.. they are like lawyers that lie to you about the law.

lazs

[MORAY37]

Wow.  Instead of actually looking up real science facts...this is a thread of titanic vomit spewn from each self toting "sane" global warming denier.
One actually lauds the fact that there was "record snow" this year in his locale, without bothering to check that "record snow" is actually one of the signposts highlighted by climatologists as an effect of global climate change.  Record precipitation of any type indicates the evaporation of greater amounts of water which leads to extreme amounts falling somewhere else.....I know it's tough, but try actually reading up on what you are talking about.

Another says, "on good authority" that the polar ice cover is as great or greater than it was before.  With a little fact checking one will find that "area covered"(ie surface area) did go up.  That's undeniable.  But, when you look into the other statistics on the ice caps, you will be forced into reality when you read the truth... that "depth of ice cap" has decreased even more rapidly.  This points to the fact that warmer water is eating away at the "deep ice".  The net result, even with larger surface area covered,  is a net loss in ice cover at the poles.

Despite the recent announcement that the discharge from some Antarctic glaciers is accelerating, we often hear people remarking that parts of Antarctica are getting colder, and indeed the ice pack in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica has actually been getting bigger. Doesn’t this contradict the calculations that greenhouse gases are warming the globe? Not at all, because a cold Antarctica is just what calculations predict… and have predicted for the past quarter century.

The replacement of older, thicker Arctic ice by younger, thinner ice, combined with the effects of warming, unusual atmospheric circulation patterns and increased melting from solar radiation absorbed by open waters in 2007 all have contributed to the phenomenon, said Drobot. "These conditions are setting the Arctic up for additional, significant melting because of the positive feedback loop that plays back on itself."

"Taken together, these changes suggest that the Arctic Ocean is approaching a point where a return to pre-1990s ice conditions becomes increasingly difficult and where large, abrupt changes in summer ice cover as in 2007 may become the norm," the research team wrote in Geophysical Research Letters

[MORAY37]

Hey Flatbar! Who ARE you going to hate when Bush in no longer prez? Who will you hate about then? Just curious.
 

How many vacation days have you had the past 7 years?  We've been ostensibly at war, and Bush has had 580 days of vacation. (The most EVER by a sitting two term president, and his second term isn't over yet) Not to mention those 50 or so scandals, and the denegration of the constitution to the paper it is scribed upon.

We deserve much better, and if you don't think so....I'm sorry.  Lack of expectations is killing this great country.

[crockett]

It would definitely be an interesting case, and would really take a good solid look into if global warming is real or not. 

Btw Wraq when I click on that second link nothing happens, it just says loading.

There is no argument as to if "global warming" is real or not.. Much the same thing as there is no argument if "global cooling" is real or not. They both happen.. the only argument is if "man" has any affect on speeding up the process.

If you look past the catchy phrases "global warming" and look more at "global climate change" you will see that, is what most scientist refer to. The term global warming was the catch phrase but it doesn't really cover everything. So anytime there is a colder winter all the naysayers come out of the wood work to say.. see we told you so.

Instead of actually listening to what the scientist say they would rather debate the title "global warming".

Meanwhile the ice caps are melting along with the snow packs that give water to most of the world. New deserts are forming in Africa at an alarming rate while in other parts of the world there are record amounts of rain and floods. This is exactly what scientist have projected to happen because of "global climate change" better known as "global warming".

It is happening there is no argument on that.. the "only" argument is if man is envolved in speeding up the changes.

[lazs2]

crok-it.. you actually make some sense here.   I pretty much agree with what you said and would add...

I believe that it is important that before we come up with some kind of "cure" for the climate of the planet that we make absolutely sure that it doesn't cause more harm than good.. if millions of people are throw into below poverty level and starve on a guess..  that will not do.

If whole economies are destroyed with a theory.. that will not do..  I have even heard now that in order to save ourselves at this point.. we need zero carbon emissions.  even cavemen used fire to cook...  If they don't understand how climate works... if they can't use the models to predict next year and the year after perfectly.. then why should I believe that they have some special insight about 100 years from now?   

lazs

[Hajo]

Moray you missed the point.......that during the last 12 months the temperature has dropped a full degree.

If it drops it can't be warming.  And the Polar ice cap is as large as it has ever been.

Also, Global warming and cooling has occured over billions of years naturally.

So....maybe it is warming...maybe it is cooling.  But mother nature does it by herself.

So keep on believeing those who haven't produced anything earth shattering proving man has caused this.

Cooling and heating have happened in the past...and will in the future weather we like it or not.

[trax1]

I don't know how much I believe in man made global warming, but you have to atleast admit that all the toxins we've dumped into the atmosphere over the last 100 years of the industrial revolution can't be good for the planet either.

[LLv34_Camouflage]

If it drops it can't be warming.  And the Polar ice cap is as large as it has ever been.

[crockett]

crok-it.. you actually make some sense here.   I pretty much agree with what you said and would add...

I believe that it is important that before we come up with some kind of "cure" for the climate of the planet that we make absolutely sure that it doesn't cause more harm than good.. if millions of people are throw into below poverty level and starve on a guess..  that will not do.

If whole economies are destroyed with a theory.. that will not do..  I have even heard now that in order to save ourselves at this point.. we need zero carbon emissions.  even cavemen used fire to cook...  If they don't understand how climate works... if they can't use the models to predict next year and the year after perfectly.. then why should I believe that they have some special insight about 100 years from now?   

lazs

holy moly lazs agrees with me..   

On the side note, I can agree that we should always be skeptible about things. I'm always one of the first to question something I don't think is quite right.

The problem that I see with the whole global warming.. global climate change is we are at the mercy of scientist. Could they be wrong, possibly could they be right? possibly. Personally I believe global climate change is a natural process and not a whole lot we can do to stop it overall. So if we are actually having an effect on it, the same thing would likely happen in 15 hundred years (or however long it would take) but only naturally.

So I look at global climate change as a natural occurrence but I do think we are playing a roll in it. You can't tell me cutting down most of the world forest aren't going to have a effect on the planet. Yea can't tell me pumping all the crap in the air that we pump int it, isn't going to hurt the air we breathe. Look at any major city and that should be apparent.

So the question I have to ask is this.. reguardless if you think man is having an effect. What's it hurt to clean up our act? If we have the ability to do things in such a way it won't harm our enviorment why not start doing it? We already know oil is limited, it's going to be gone that is a fact. So why not push for something cleaner to replace it? It "has" to eventually be replaced, so why wait until oil is $300 a barrel?

We also have the ability to replace dirty coal power plants with cleaner more efficant plants.. We could be using more wind or solar power as well. In the long run it will be cheaper and cleaner, yet our govt and many people fight it. Why? It really makes no sense to me.