If you do that rolleyes thing too much, frictional heating will melt the neurons of your prefrontal cortex.
Ohh, I see. 
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:Just like all the man-made CO2 is heating the planet to irreversible climate changes, dooming human life on earth to certain extinction? Riiiight. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Seriously?
You mock Gore for not being a scientist and you use a cite from a site run by a freaking engineer working for the West Virginia Office of Miners’ Health Safety and Training. The same guy who gave us this little ode to strip miners (Poe’s law at work). Ouch.
Riiigth, who said that? The reality is that deniers, the same ones misleading others saying that most scientists predicted a coming ice age in the 70’s, that scientists ignored that climate changed in the past , that scientists are getting rich out of this, those deniers are just spewing bullshit.
And so, as usual, you are also wrong on this one. The most sourced and cited research does not report that we could surpass more than 5 degrees Celsius of global warming, enough to cause lots of grief on regions of the earth, but not enough to end the human race.
So you can’t see the potential economic and political impacts alternate energy industries and international treaties supporting climate change issues entail?
Nah, nodoy has anythiong to gain here.
Sorry, back to your regularly sheduled rants and delusions…
Do you have any cites regarding the accused scientists of doing so?
http://solveclimatenews.com/news/20100708/hacked-email-scientists-exonerated-misconduct-third-time
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905010049
Yeah, I have the cites to demonstrate that you are the deluded one. And anyone can see that you avoided reading the historical cite that showed that early pioneers on the effects of CO2 like Calender and Plass did their discoveries outside of their academic settings and had little to no profit for demonstrating how human CO2 is changing the balance.
Hold that idea up against the idea of the people who stand to benefit from denying AGW - oil and gas companies, car manufacturers, manufacturers of just about everything, governments who want to be re-elected and don’t want to campaign on a platform of, “We have to make a lot of hard choices that will decrease your quality of life,” etc. There are very few people who benefit from AGW being true, and a whole metric shitload of people who benefit from business as usual.
Of course Nadir, my last cite does refer to Al Gore, once again, he is no scientist, but it had to be pointed out that even the accusations against him on doing this just for profit do not match the reality.
And in the real world even if the denier Koch brothers finance it, PBSs NOVA can still tell them that polar ice continues to ignore their denials by continuing to melt due to global warming, and it is making the conservative predictions about future sea rise to be too optimistic.
I’ve heard a criticism of the IPCC predictions that they are TOO conservative.
Indeed, early I think a poster mentioned that we should follow the null hypothesis, in this case the IPCC has follow it by punting on the possible acceleration of the melting of the polar ice.
Back in 2007 there was still not enough information to make a good prediction on what the ice was going to do in a warming world, so it was assumed that a **potential **act of the ice would had little or no effect. Giving us the conservative estimates that by the end of the century we could expect about 50 centimeters of sea rise. Like that, other possible feed-backs have not been used or minimized in the past reports because, gosh, the IPCC did the right thing and avoided dealing with the then still uncertain feed-backs. So a conservative report was the result.
The fact that deniers even attempt to discredit the conservative reports shows that deniers are not even wrong, they do not even have a clue.
So that would make you one of the “believers?”
Keep demonstrating to all that you are still failing to read about the history of the discovery of global warming, it is not by faith that the scientists or I* got to propose that AGW is becoming a big problem.
*For me it was by checking the history of paleoclimatology that it showed me how stupid were the deniers are for relying on an even early IPCC graph to claim that the most recent and independent reconstructions with more sources and scientists were wrong. (No sirree, science can not advance and get better information, we deniers will continue to forever stupidly say that the early incomplete proxy temperature records are the beesknees!)
Wait…that was 3 years ago. AFAIK (and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong since I haven’t kept up that closely), the IPCC has not substantially modified it’s predictions. Are you saying they are holding back, or that (presumably for political reasons) are deliberately keeping their predictions ‘conservative’?? I thought that the IPCC was THE authoritative source and clearing house on this stuff…no?
-XT
Who exactly is saying ‘most scientists’ were predicting an ice age during the 70’s?
Only time I ever heard anyone mention it, it came from an ordinary, everyday leftie…or from a leftie source like Hollywood or Newsweek. Same with running out of trees and oil and that we were all gonna die because of a hole in the ozone.
But you know what, though? They all claimed science was on their side. 
There’s a difference between ‘the left’ and ‘most scientists’. You need to learn how to make that distinction.
The IPCC did mention in their 2007 report that the likely ocean rise calculation omitted any possible acceleration of ice degradation or melting, and that is because it was indeed just “possible” and not as well supported as other global warming effects.
IIRC even until 2008 the evidence showed that more snow (turning to ice) was expected in the Antarctic, meaning that it could offset any ice loses in the Arctic (specially Greenland), so it was better to be brutally sincere and not include most of the possible polar ice melting as it was not well supported. But as the NOVA report showed, the evidence is mounting that the Antarctic will not be a safe place for the Ice, even with more snow from more water vapor in the atmosphere, the evidence is there that the melting is accelerating.
You also missed the citation from our intrepid **Nadir **in the thread, I see.
Yeah, just more evidence of you not having a clue, or paying attention. Your post only exudes the ignoramuses certainty that science** does not march on**.
You clearly said:
Just look at all those plurals.
Who knew Nadir was such a crowd.
Certainly science marches on. But it’s often wrong. This is why astronomers and archeologists and molecular biologists are continually happening upon new evidence that turns their suppositions upside down. Almost everyone knows that science is wrong (or has incomplete information and flawed theories) much more often than it’s right.
Who knew that you would ignore the other past threads on the subject? Or that you also be so dumb to miss that I was referring to the sources **Nadir **used.
That 70’s bit has popped up here and elsewhere so many times that even made it to the denial crock of the week:
Now this I want to see, cite for the continually happening? As demonstrated before you don’t have a clue regarding Evolution or other sciences, your citation will for sure ignore that you are confusing specific items with the whole theory.
Who knew that you wouldn’t reference them in speaking plurally to me about Nadir. (I can do this all night. But I’m not going to. I’m out of here after this post.)
It’s not a bit, it’s history.
Specious premise. Those of us who were there at the time know that almost all of the hysteria about an oncoming ice age was coming from the political left. Same with all the other predicted catastrophes that you keep ignoring mention of.
Sorry, I don’t offer cites for general observations.
Only you can prevent the stupidity of ignoring that Nadir was not the writer of the cite, that makes them 2 persons at least. At least to persons with average intelligence.
Pop culture history, the majority of scientists predicted warming.
And when did I say that I agreed with them? You are still stupidly missing that I follow what the scientists say, not what any supposed lefty said (So far, it is clear that they were misguided reporters without a clue).
Yeah, too much Google vomiting from you in the past.