Global Warming: Speech by Al Gore filled with vulgarity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monte_RCMS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StrawberryJam said:
Any takers to define the difference between global warming and climate change?

Any?
Click to expand...
Yea, global warming is what happens when Al Gore farts. And climate change is what happens when it rains and then when it pours. That’s the difference.
 
joshrp said:
Can we get back on topic?
Click to expand...
👍👍
Can anyone produce evidence for man made global warming? Any takers?
Click to expand...
I have been asking this question for years now.

Can you tell me what the Earth’s Optimum Temperature is? Is it .05C or 1.5 C HIGHER or LOWER than todays Temperature?

If we can’t provide this…what happens to AGW IPCC Claims?
 
joshrp said:
Yea, global warming is what happens when Al Gore farts. And climate change is what happens when it rains and then when it pours. That’s the difference.
Click to expand...
Still can not make a distinction with your backround that should impress us in science?

Can you make the distinction or not? Where do you get your education from?

Who cares if you can not even answer a question.
 
StrawberryJam said:
Believe in what stuff? Climate change or global warming and what is the difference if you can tell us?
Click to expand...
Whatever it is you’re pushing. Global warming, climate change. Honestly, they aren’t important issues at all. They don’t mean anything. You don’t even know what they are and you are asking me to define them, and I’m telling you that they are absolutely nothing. They are made up concepts that have no relation to physical reality. If you know what they are, then explain them to ME.
 
StrawberryJam said:
Name names.
Click to expand...
:rotfl::rotfl: How about ALL of IPCC.

NO ONE has connected these with observational evidences.

Can you provide evidence using IPCC’s solution that we can lower Temperature even 1C ?

I can furnish you with IPCC’s own maths
 
joshrp said:
Whatever it is you’re pushing. Global warming, climate change. Honestly, they aren’t important issues at all. They don’t mean anything. You don’t even know what they are and you are asking me to define them, and I’m telling you that they are absolutely nothing. They are made up concepts that have no relation to physical reality. If you know what they are, then explain them to ME.
Click to expand...
I have to trust your personal opinion on this then. Based on what?
 
kimmielittle said:
:rotfl::rotfl: How about ALL of IPCC.

NO ONE has connected these with observational evidences.

Can you provide evidence using IPCC’s solution that we can lower Temperature even 1C ?

I can furnish you with IPCC’s own maths
Click to expand...
Honestly, I don’t even pay attention to IPCC. They are a political organization, not a scientific one.
 
StrawberryJam said:
I have to trust your personal opinion on this then. Based on what?
Click to expand...
If you want to know something, go and figure it out on your own. Stop asking people to think and know for you. That is the problem. I can’t give you the answers. No one can. You just have to dig into it yourself. If you don’t do that, then you don’t know anything. That’s really just how it works. Your going to have to do some real work here. Just repeating statistics and figure and graphs and all that isn’t going to tell you anything.

Just do it. Or else you are going to be upset about this for the rest of your life.
 
StrawberryJam said:
Believe in what stuff? Climate change or global warming and what is the difference if you can tell us?
Click to expand...
There is a HUGE difference in AGW and Natural Climate Change -

One is an unproven hypothesis living in a Model - AGW

The other is 200 Million years of Observational evidence

HERE’s YOUR MATHS

This will show you “Impact” results.

I will use IPCC’s own numbers. Which support man is the ONLY Driver of climate - a premise we know to be a lie.

First and foremost - Remember CO2 is not climate…it is gas. In other words, We can reduce the gas and not touch the Climate.

BUT say, I agree with you that CO2 drives climate AND we wanted to 'Mitigate" just 1C by reducing CO2. Here is what is required. That MAGIC number is 1,767,250.

And here is how we get that number: How much CO2 emissions are required to change the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 1 part per million ppm ],

Then we’ll figure out how many ppms of CO2 it takes to raise the global temperature 1ºC. Then, we’ll have our answer.

Now we have what we need. It takes 14,138mmt of CO2 emissions to raise the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 1 ppm AND it takes 125 ppm to raise the global temperature 1ºC. So multiplying 14,138mmt/pmm by 125ppm /ºC gives us 1,767,250mmt /ºC.

Now, let’s apply this: Using IPCC numbers, again.

In the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill considered by Congress,
CO2 emissions from the U.S. in the year 2050 are proposed to be 83% less than they were in 2005.

In 2005, U.S. emissions were about 6,000 mmt,
So 83% below that would be 1,020mmt or a reduction of 4,980mmt CO2.
4,980 divided by 1,767,250 = 0.0028ºC per year.

In other words, even if the ENTIRE United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 83% below current levels, it would only amount to a reduction of global warming of LESS than THREE-THOUSANDTHS of a ºC per year.

A number that is scientifically meaningless.

Of course, this is assuming CO2 is Climate Changes Driver…ignoring all other Natiural drivers, As AGW does. We know that to ignoreall other Natural drivers, we are premising a lie.

Now…Why would there be such a dramatic push for us to REDUCE THREE-THOUSANDTHS of a C…UNLESS, someone was making a killing…AND using AGW trying to scare us ??

You are welcome to test my math
OR

Quote:Q. What is the central estimate of the anthropogenic global warming, in Celsius degrees, that would be forestalled by 2020 if a) Australia alone and b) the whole world cut carbon emissions stepwise until by 2020 they were 5% below today’s emissions?

Answer a). Australia accounts for (at most) 1.5% of global carbon emissions. A stepwise 5% cut by 2020 is an average 2.5% cut from now till then. CO2 concentration by 2020, taking the IPCC’s A2 scenario, will be 412 parts per million by volume, compared with 390 ppmv now. So Man will have added 22 ppmv by 2020, without any cuts in emissions. The CO2 concentration increase forestalled by almost a decade of cap-and-tax in Australia would thus be 2.5% of 1.5% of 22 ppmv, or 0.00825 ppmv. So in 2020 CO2 concentration would be 411.99175 ppmv instead of 412 ppmv…

So the proportionate change in CO2 concentration if the Commission and Ms. Gillard got their way would be 411.99175/412, or 0.99997998. The IPCC says warming or cooling, in Celsius degrees, is 3.7-5.7 times the logarithm of the proportionate change: central estimate 4.7. Also, it expects only 57% of manmade warming to occur by 2100: the rest would happen slowly and harmlessly over perhaps 1000 years.

So the warming forestalled by cutting Australia’s emissions would be 57% of 4.7 times the logarithm of 0.99997998: that is – wait for it, wait for it – a dizzying 0.00005 Celsius, or around one-twenty-thousandth of a Celsius degree. Your estimate of a thousandth of a degree was a 20-fold exaggeration – not that Flannery was ever going to tell you that, of course.

Answer b) . We do the same calculation for the whole world, thus:

2.5% of 22 ppmv = 0.55 ppmv. Warming forestalled by 2020 = 0.57 x 4.7 ln(412-0.55)/412] < 0.004 Celsius, or less than four one-thousandths of a Celsius degree, or around one-two-hundred-and-eightieth of a Celsius degree. And that at a cost of trillions.

Quote:A cautionary note: the warming forestalled will only be this big if the IPCC’s central estimate of the rate at which adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming is correct. However, it’s at least a twofold exaggeration and probably more like fourfold. So divide both the above answers by, say, 3 to get what will still probably be an overestimate of the warming forestalled.

Before you start preaching what we should do… Maybe, we should investigate what can’t be done…with what has been “Sold” as a fix to the unproven hypothesis of AGW and it’s supposed cure .
 
joshrp said:
Honestly, I don’t even pay attention to IPCC. They are a political organization, not a scientific one.
Click to expand...
NO ONE has connected these 5 needed connections …NO ONE 🤷🤷

IN FACT: NO ONE has provided observational evidences of them singularly.
 
kimmielittle said:
There is a HUGE difference in AGW and Natural Climate Change -

One is an unproven hypothesis living in a Model - AGW

The other is 200 Million years of Observational evidence

HERE’s YOUR MATHS

This will show you “Impact” results.

I will use IPCC’s own numbers. Which support man is the ONLY Driver of climate - a premise we know to be a lie.

First and foremost - Remember CO2 is not climate…it is gas. In other words, We can reduce the gas and not touch the Climate.

BUT say, I agree with you that CO2 drives climate AND we wanted to 'Mitigate" just 1C by reducing CO2. Here is what is required. That MAGIC number is 1,767,250.

And here is how we get that number: How much CO2 emissions are required to change the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 1 part per million ppm ],

Then we’ll figure out how many ppms of CO2 it takes to raise the global temperature 1ºC. Then, we’ll have our answer.

Now we have what we need. It takes 14,138mmt of CO2 emissions to raise the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 1 ppm AND it takes 125 ppm to raise the global temperature 1ºC. So multiplying 14,138mmt/pmm by 125ppm /ºC gives us 1,767,250mmt /ºC.

Now, let’s apply this: Using IPCC numbers, again.

In the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill considered by Congress,
CO2 emissions from the U.S. in the year 2050 are proposed to be 83% less than they were in 2005.

In 2005, U.S. emissions were about 6,000 mmt,
So 83% below that would be 1,020mmt or a reduction of 4,980mmt CO2.
4,980 divided by 1,767,250 = 0.0028ºC per year.

In other words, even if the ENTIRE United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 83% below current levels, it would only amount to a reduction of global warming of LESS than THREE-THOUSANDTHS of a ºC per year.

A number that is scientifically meaningless.

Of course, this is assuming CO2 is Climate Changes Driver…ignoring all other Natiural drivers, As AGW does. We know that to ignoreall other Natural drivers, we are premising a lie.

Now…Why would there be such a dramatic push for us to REDUCE THREE-THOUSANDTHS of a C…UNLESS, someone was making a killing…AND using AGW trying to scare us ??

You are welcome to test my math
OR

Quote:Q. What is the central estimate of the anthropogenic global warming, in Celsius degrees, that would be forestalled by 2020 if a) Australia alone and b) the whole world cut carbon emissions stepwise until by 2020 they were 5% below today’s emissions?

Answer a). Australia accounts for (at most) 1.5% of global carbon emissions. A stepwise 5% cut by 2020 is an average 2.5% cut from now till then. CO2 concentration by 2020, taking the IPCC’s A2 scenario, will be 412 parts per million by volume, compared with 390 ppmv now. So Man will have added 22 ppmv by 2020, without any cuts in emissions. The CO2 concentration increase forestalled by almost a decade of cap-and-tax in Australia would thus be 2.5% of 1.5% of 22 ppmv, or 0.00825 ppmv. So in 2020 CO2 concentration would be 411.99175 ppmv instead of 412 ppmv…

So the proportionate change in CO2 concentration if the Commission and Ms. Gillard got their way would be 411.99175/412, or 0.99997998. The IPCC says warming or cooling, in Celsius degrees, is 3.7-5.7 times the logarithm of the proportionate change: central estimate 4.7. Also, it expects only 57% of manmade warming to occur by 2100: the rest would happen slowly and harmlessly over perhaps 1000 years.

So the warming forestalled by cutting Australia’s emissions would be 57% of 4.7 times the logarithm of 0.99997998: that is – wait for it, wait for it – a dizzying 0.00005 Celsius, or around one-twenty-thousandth of a Celsius degree. Your estimate of a thousandth of a degree was a 20-fold exaggeration – not that Flannery was ever going to tell you that, of course.

Answer b) . We do the same calculation for the whole world, thus:

2.5% of 22 ppmv = 0.55 ppmv. Warming forestalled by 2020 = 0.57 x 4.7 ln(412-0.55)/412] < 0.004 Celsius, or less than four one-thousandths of a Celsius degree, or around one-two-hundred-and-eightieth of a Celsius degree. And that at a cost of trillions.

Quote:A cautionary note: the warming forestalled will only be this big if the IPCC’s central estimate of the rate at which adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming is correct. However, it’s at least a twofold exaggeration and probably more like fourfold. So divide both the above answers by, say, 3 to get what will still probably be an overestimate of the warming forestalled.

Before you start preaching what we should do… Maybe, we should investigate what can’t be done…with what has been “Sold” as a fix to the unproven hypothesis of AGW and it’s supposed cure .
Click to expand...
They are making a killing. You know what causes global warming: Saddam Hussein’s WMDs.
 
kimmielittle said:
NO ONE has connected these 5 needed connections …NO ONE 🤷🤷
Click to expand...
Do you think they are just trying to waste all of our time? Some people do that a lot you know. That’s what I think they are doing. There is real work to be done, honestly. We need to stop asking people for things they obviously don’t have.
 
kimmielittle said:
NO ONE has connected these 5 needed connections …NO ONE 🤷🤷

IN FACT: NO ONE has provided observational evidences of them singularly.
Click to expand...
Some of them just want your money. Some of them just want you dead. Some of them are just evil. Some of them are just psychotic. It’s like a zoo honestly. We go to the zoo to debate science. It’s ridiculous.
 
joshrp said:
Do you think they are just trying to waste all of our time?
Click to expand...
The Actual Science isn’t a waste of time.

It is when Science allows itself to be AUTHORITARIAN - POLITICIZED Or AGENDA DRIVEN.
Some people do that a lot you know. That’s what I think they are doing. There is real work to be done, honestly. We need to stop asking people for things they obviously don’t have.
Click to expand...
First and foremost - Remember CO2 is not climate…it is gas. In other words, We can reduce the gas and not touch the Climate..
 
joshrp said:
If you want to know something, go and figure it out on your own. Stop asking people to think and know for you. That is the problem. I can’t give you the answers. No one can. You just have to dig into it yourself. If you don’t do that, then you don’t know anything. That’s really just how it works. Your going to have to do some real work here. Just repeating statistics and figure and graphs and all that isn’t going to tell you anything.

Just do it. Or else you are going to be upset about this for the rest of your life.
Click to expand...
I have asked you to back up your claims and you can not do it.
You refuse to do it.

Don’t make positive claims you can not back up. It does not help your argument at all.

Making the presumption that I have not investigated or am not aware of the evidence or lack of, is an accusation you have no evidence for.

You are still unable to back up your postive claims. Defelection is not going to take that away. We can deal with all other sidetracks once you define the distinction between global warming and climate change.

Until then, you are preaching a gospel I am forced to believe in because you said so.
 
kimmielittle said:
The Actual Science isn’t a waste of time.

It is when Science allows itself to be AUTHORITARIAN - POLITICIZED Or AGENDA DRIVEN.

First and foremost - Remember CO2 is not climate…it is gas. In other words, We can reduce the gas and not touch the Climate..
Click to expand...
You love all caps don’t you? Do you feel it is like yelling at people or stopping traffic or even a rule violation to do so?
 
kimmielittle said:
The Actual Science isn’t a waste of time.

It is when Science allows itself to be AUTHORITARIAN - POLITICIZED Or AGENDA DRIVEN.

First and foremost - Remember CO2 is not climate…it is gas. In other words, We can reduce the gas and not touch the Climate..
Click to expand...
Honestly, CO2 is what plants feed on. There is absolutely nothing wrong with CO2. If we didn’t have any, there would be no life on the planet. The plants would all die, and then all the people would die, because there would be no oxygen for us to breathe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top