Then you should have no problem understanding that your side is still failing to convince enough fence sitters to buy into your version of global warming theory. Haters gotta hate, but that doesn’t mean they’re convincing.
You should also understand that you need to convince those fence sitters of your need to change the status quo, if you ever intend to make man-made-CO2-is-evil laws the laws of the globe. Simply having another COPxx isn’t your goal, is it?
Isn’t this “we started producing massive amounts of CO2” just a small fraction of the total amount of CO2 produced every decade/year/month/day?
Or what? YOU offered a bet. EYE haven’t accepted your offer. I’ve had previous encounters with “bettors” on the internet and I have yet to have any of them pay up when they lost.
Seriously, it’s never too late to learn critical thinking skills. Even you could do it, if you wanted to. But apparently, you’d rather just parrot idiocy. It’s easier for you that way, I realize, and thinking for yourself is hard.
Speaking of Al Gore’s movie - In 2007 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, for the first time (the only time?), judged the claims Al Gore’s Incontinent Truth. When the mockumentory was subjected to full disclosure, in court, and under oath, it was ruled to be a “political film”. It could only be show in British schools if the accompaning “Guidance Note” demanded teachers present a balanced presentation of opposing viewpoints instead of simple political indoctrination.
44. I am satisfied that, with the Guidance Note, as amended, the Defendant is setting the film into a context in which it can be shown by teachers, and not so that the Defendant itself or the schools are promoting partisan views contained in the film, and is putting it into a context in which a balanced presentation of opposing views can and will be offered. There is no call for the Defendant to support the more extreme views of Mr Gore – indeed the Government’s adherence is to the IPCC views - but the present package in my judgment does enough to make it clear both what the mainstream view is, insofar as Mr Gore departs from it, and that there are views of “sceptics” who do not accept even the consensus views of the IPCC. The Defendant will not be promoting partisan political views by enabling the showing of AIT in the context of the discussions facilitated by the Guidance Note, and is not under a duty to forbid the presentation of it in that context.
It is, he ruled, a “political film”.
The nine alleged errors in the film
Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”. The judge said: "This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s “wake-up call”. He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - “but only after, and over, millennia”.“The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”
The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls “are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming” but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.
The documentary speaks of global warming “shutting down the Ocean Conveyor” - the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was “very unlikely” that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.
Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fit”. The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”.
Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change.
The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that “it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.”
Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was “insufficient evidence to show that”.
Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from “swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice” The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - “but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description”.
Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.*
Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills
It was a pretty safe bet that you would be too chickenshit to accept the bet.
If you’re too cheap to make a money bet, here’s another proposal: If I win, you’ll never post in another thread about global climate change again. If you win, I’ll do the same.
How many fence sitters/skeptics/deniers do you believe you have just convinced to accept your version of man-made-CO2-is-evil global warming? Haters gotta hate but they’re just not very convincing. Get well soon.
Just to be clear, you said, “Torrential rains in California and other effects are likely”, and you’ll bet $100 right now that California will see wetter than average conditions in the coming year.
I said, “California can certainly use the rain”. “IF” your predictions come true. ".
Where, specifically, did I say that your “torrential rains” comment was untrue, incorrect, unbelievable, horseshit, or had been made by a monkey-faced, poopyhead?
As you can see, I have neither agreed or disagreed with your statement concerning California rains.
If you’re asking me to bet on the probability of your correctly predicting California weather, then no, there is nothing to bet on. I see no reason to bet on your power to predict.
The nine inaccuracies (of Al Gore’s Incontinent Truth)
*The judge described nine statements by Gore as departures from the scientific mainstream. However, Al Gore’s spokesman has disputed this characterisation of the nine statements, which were as follows:
Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland. Gore’s view: “If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, the Low Countries: absolutely devastation. The area around Beijing is home to tens of millions of people. Even worse, in the area around Shanghai, there are 40 million people. Worse still, Calcutta, and to the east Bangladesh, the area covered includes 50 million people. Think of the impact of a couple of hundred thousand refugees when they are displaced by an environmental event and then imagine the impact of a hundred million or more. Here is Manhattan. This is the World Trade Center memorial site. After the horrible events of 9/11 we said never again. This is what would happen to Manhattan. They can measure this precisely, just as scientists could predict precisely how much water would breach the levee in New Orleans.”[20]
Justice Burton’s view: “This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore’s ‘wake-up call’. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”[19]
Other scientific views: Gore does not say that the sea level would rise 7 metres in the immediate future, though he says that such a rise is a possibility (without specifying the timeframe). The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report predicts that the sea level could rise up to 59 cm by 2100, but excludes any effects from melting in Greenland and Antarctica because of the scientific uncertainties in predicting that scenario. While many scientists believe that neither land mass will melt significantly in the next century,[21] NASA climatologist James E. Hansen has predicted a major increase in sea level on the order of several metres by the end of the 21st century*.
Millennia? Why would it take 1,000 years for water to flow around the globe. The Gulf Stream rushes along at about four mph. At that speed, a floating object would circle the earth in 2/3 of a year. Why do you imagine needing a thousand years?
As it was explained before, but your delayed acting brain is not capable of getting, Gore was talking about long term results, of course as Barry Bickmore mentioned, Gore overstated and did not press the point that it was indeed a long term prediction.
How long? I have seen studies that it would take about 300-500 years for the expected loss of cap ice to cause a rise of about 20 feet, but in the meantime:
The short of it is that Justice Burton’s was an ignorant for thinking that Gore was talking about “millennia” as in thousands of years.
So this stupid point of yours was shot down and several years ago already too, like your denial of the loss of Glacier ice; I do not expect that you will stop sounding like an idiot for continuing to believe in things like you posted and your denier sources of information.
Maybe you should ask Justice Burton? Since you’re quoting him.
Justice Burton’s view: “This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore’s ‘wake-up call’. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”
