An Inconvenient Truth

[ABCs]

Open Chat isn't, and since you don't have any knowledge to provide in the area of health in fitness or any other area for that matter you're pretty much worthless.

You really have a problem, dont ya? It's all good though, can't be friends with everyone, right? Just stay off my ball sack you fucking homo or I'll beat you like your father did when you were young.

 

[BigDyl]

You really have a problem, dont ya? It's all good though, can't be friends with everyone, right? Just stay off my ball sack you fucking homo or I'll beat you like your father did when you were young.

Infraction worthy quote right there.^

Typical noob making idle threats on a forum. Kenwood?

Oh, and you won't beat anybody's ass, especially someone who is older, stronger, smarter, and trained fighter.

 

[ABCs]

Infraction worthy quote right there.^

Typical noob making idle threats on a forum. Kenwood?

Oh, and you won't beat anybody's ass, especially someone who is older, stronger, smarter, and trained fighter.

Great man, I'm done with you. Stay off my sack and things will be peachy.

 

[DOMS]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

Quoting from your link:

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] was now clear from the latest study, which is yet to be published, that man-made greenhouse gases had caused vast amounts of heat to be soaked up by the oceans"

We're just supposed to take his word for it?

I think that, as usual, the global warming claim has an agenda beyond the environment.

"[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The study destroys a central argument of global warming skeptics within the Bush administration"

"[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It should convince George Bush to drop his objections to the Kyoto treaty on climate change, the scientists say."

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"America produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, yet under President Bush it is one of the few developed nations not to have signed the Kyoto treaty to limit emissions."

For scientists, they focus a lot on Bush. Yes, I know that he's not a friend of the environment, but neither is China (and they're worse). Yet they didn't get mentioned. Global warming is, for most of its followers, nothing more than a political tool.


[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]

 

[Yanick]

In case you didn't know theres been more the one study on global warming lol I didn't try to cherry pick theres a bunch of studies and a large majority will agree with my point of view. Notice on my post I say 90 % lol

you said you were gonna provide hard scientific studies to support man made global warning. all i saw was a google search, and the first link completely contradicted what you were saying. i don't care about your statistical analysis of scientific studies, it is abundantly clear that you know nothing about this issue and refuse to learn. instead you jump on the bandwagon and act all smug about it.

i should also mention that i don't really know the answer to the global warming question as both theories have holes in them, just like any scientific debate out there. i just refuse to jump on the bandwagon and act all high and mighty when someone has a different view. as well i hate people who argue, yet know nothing about what they are arguing and your actions in this thread have demonstrated just that.

 

[NordicNacho]

I guess the US National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Union of Concerned Scientists are wrong and haven't seen the evidence you are in enlighted with. Are talking out of there ass's too just jumping on the bandwagon.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Supporters_of_the_global_warming_theory

 

[Yanick]

wow, your pretty good. not only can you do google searches, but you can also search wikipedia. i can't hang with you bro.

seriously though i'll say one last thing before i wind up getting caught up in an endless debate. a couple of thousand years ago scholars thought disease was caused by evil spirits and that everything in the universe was made up of air, water, fire and earth. a couple of hundred years ago 100% of scientists agreed that the earth was at the center of the universe and went so far as to kill off any opposition to that view. later 100% of scientists agreed that the world was flat, don't know if anyone was killed over that or not but the point stands. the world is not as simple as some make it out to be and when something like gravity is still a theory (although widely accepted) i find it difficult to just believe in something when everyone else does, hell if i'd do that then i'd be a christian

i also gave a quick look over to your link and found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

your original statement might've been true but my above points still stand. too many holes in the science that these people are spewing to take anything as an absolute answer.

 

[NordicNacho]

your original statement might've been true but my above points still stand. too many holes in the science that these people are spewing to take anything as an absolute answer.

never said anything was abosolute


You say this after this personal attack, hate is a strong word

as well i hate people who argue, yet know nothing about what they are arguing and your actions in this thread have demonstrated just that.

looks like you like to use absolutes though. See a few 100 percents in there. Got some of your dates wrong too. off by a few hundred years

wow, your pretty good. not only can you do google searches, but you can also search wikipedia. can't hang with you bro.

seriously though i'll say one last thing before i wind up getting caught up in an endless debate. a couple of thousand years ago scholars thought disease was caused by evil spirits and that everything in the universe was made up of air, water, fire and earth. a couple of hundred years ago 100% of scientists agreed that the earth was at the center of the universe and went so far as to kill off any opposition to that view. later 100% of scientists agreed that the world was flat, don't know if anyone was killed over that or not but the point stands.

 

[BigDyl]

Yanik is one of the world's leading scientists...

 

[Squaggleboggin]

I'm watching An Inconvenient Truth. I'm writing this as I watch the movie.

The first few minutes are a shocker; Al Gore seems to have a personality now.

At one point, Al Gore simply says The atmosphere is thin. So thin that it makes sense that humans can affect it. Then, having proven nothing, he simply moves on. No facts, no data, nothing.

He shows a graph of the CO2 levels. He draws it at a 45 degree angle while talking about temperature levels. He's trying to imply that the graph is about temperatures. This brings up an interesting question: if CO2 levels are rising so fast, where's the correlation? The average temperature has risen about 1 degree in the last hundred years. If CO2 has such a great affect on temperatures, then where is the huge spike in temperatures in the last 50 years? And don't give me that crap about the ???hottest x day in the past x years???, the temperature has been rising for over 10,000 years, so the hottest days should be now. But where is the big spike in the last two or so years?

He also goes on and on about the affects of global warming. He talks about the loss of glaciers like it's a man-made problem. Never mind that they started to recede over 10,000 years ago. At this point in the file (about 16 minutes) he has yet to make a mention of the natural trend of th globes temperates. $100 says he never does; Not once in the movie.

Oh God, this stuff is good. He talks about the loss of a water source for the people living in the Himalayas and blames it on global warming. So, what's the source of this water? The melting glaciers. All righty then...

Okay, now he's showing a temperature graph that only goes back a thousand years. Even creationists go back 6 thousand years. Every time a person that endorses a man-made global warming provides a temperature graph, they only go back a thousand years or so. Why don't they go back any further? Because if they do, they'll get to the point 10,000 years ago when the last ice age ended. Which is just a tad before the CO2 emissions (and industrialization) started to rise. Which doesn't fit with their world view, so they just ignore it.

Then he talks about the ???anti??? crowd bringing up the cyclical nature of global temperatures. And proceeds to point to the medieval ???hot spot???. Still ignoring the previous 4.5 billion years before that.

Okay, I stand corrected. He actually went back 650,000 thousand years. He even showed a seeming causality between CO2 levels and the ambient temperature. This is the best piece of science so far. The only problem is that he shows this huge C02 spike at the end, but the temperature does change. There goes any causality. He is correct though, pollution is a real problem, unlike man-made global warming. He never did make mention that the glaciers started to recede 10,000 years ago.

He just said that the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the last 14 years. I like that ???on record??? qualification. It's like Penn Jillette said, ???The numbers aren't bullshit, the bullshit is bullshit!??? If Gore actually looked beyond ???the record???, these are no where near the hottest days the Earth has ever seen. Not even in the last 10 million years.

Now he's trying to tie in Katrina's damage to global warming. Plenty of class 5 hurricanes have hit the US. The only thing that made Katrina something special was shitty planning by state and local officials. Natural global warming is real; and increased water temperature does provide strength to storms. So will we see greater storms, but no amount of anti-CO2 efforts on our part is going to stop that.

Okay, enough.

I made it about half-way though and it looks like all he's going to do is keep talking about the affects of increased global temperature. Which, for the most part, are true. But he seems to have just taken it as a given that it's all man's fault. So far, again, about half way through, he's said nothing about any sort of natural warming affect. Not a single sentence, other than to say that's the defense the ???other people??? use. Never mind that the same ice core science that he relies on shows that the Earth has been much hotter; and without man's intervention.

But that information would be...inconvenient...

I don't think he was implying that for every double in CO2 ppm, there would be a consequent double in temperature. He's simply showing that they're both on the rise. There is an undeniablely strong correlation between the two graphs. It's obvious to the naked human eye. You are correct in saying that he doesn't show that the temperature of the earth as a whole is increasing, however.

Anti-CO2 efforts may not stop it, but they may retard it somewhat. It is fact that more CO2 in the atmosphere means more heat is contained within the atmosphere. And it makes sense that the heat causes the things he's trying to explain. The question that needs to be answered is to what extent this occurs because of the CO2. Causation and correlation are two very different things, and I certainly agree with you about that.

You just tied Katrina to global warming yourself in the same paragraph in which you mocked his doing so.

He said 'on record' because that's all we have. Our data can go back only so far. What were you expecting him to do about the other years? "Just so you know, we have no data for a significant part of Earth's history. Bringing this up is pointless and adds nothing to the discussion except to tell you that what we have formed can only be an incomplete picture." That should be pretty obvious already. He's basically asking how much it's going to take for us to realize the causation linked to the correlation. I agree that it's not yet proven, but he has a very valid point: People don't want to believe many things they hear. At what point do you propose we attempt to do something about it? Once the temperatures really do start rising (as projected) and once it's too late? Even if there is nothing, it's not human nature to give up. We are tenacious and we survive.

No facts or data about how humans can affect the atmosphere? What do you think the increasing ppm of CO2 was all about? I'd say that's proof that humans can affect the atmosphere (not necessarily the temperature - I still think there needs to be a definitive causation provided with the correlation). What more do you need?

Yes, the water is from the melting glaciers, but why not stop them from melting at an exponentially faster rate than they naturally do? It's like saying that trees die anyway, so chopping them down and burning them makes no difference.

The big spike in temperature is indeed the part about record high days. It's more than just single days, if you pay attention - worldwide, there have been more consecutive days over 100 degrees, as well as record high temperatures around the globe. The ten hottest years on record were within the last fourteen years. That's pretty much the spike. It doesn't mean the temperature tripled. It just means that there's a trend beginning, or so he thinks.

I just watched it today. I figured your post would be similar to how it was, and thought I'd comment. I'm always interested in both sides of an argument, so this is my way of asking how someone like you might reply (but I'm not actually on either side).

 

[DOMS]

You just tied Katrina to global warming yourself in the same paragraph in which you mocked his doing so.

Poor planning was not caused by global warming.

He said 'on record' because that's all we have.

The problem is deception. He just showed "a record" of 250,000 years and then stated the temperature data "on record". That's deception.

No facts or data about how humans can affect the atmosphere? What do you think the increasing ppm of CO2 was all about?

Again, he's jumping around. He talks about how humans can increase CO2, then proceeds to talk about changing temperatures. This is the crap that all politicians do.

Yes, the water is from the melting glaciers, but why not stop them from melting at an exponentially faster rate than they naturally do?

How do you know they're melting any faster than they are supposed to?

The big spike in temperature is indeed the part about record high days.

Not on his graph.

I just watched it today. I figured your post would be similar to how it was, and thought I'd comment. I'm always interested in both sides of an argument, so this is my way of asking how someone like you might reply (but I'm not actually on either side).

I really do enjoy debating.

 

[ZECH]

if you pay attention - worldwide, there have been more consecutive days over 100 degrees, as well as record high temperatures around the globe. The ten hottest years on record were within the last fourteen years.

Yeah, too bad we didn't have record keeping 1000, 10,000 or even 100,000 years ago

 

[Squaggleboggin]

Poor planning was not caused by global warming.

I was referring to this: and increased water temperature does provide strength to storms. Here, you support what he said, but added the part about crappy planning (in the first part of the paragraph of course).

The problem is deception. He just showed "a record" of 250,000 years and then stated the temperature data "on record". That's deception.

Not quite. What was recovered from the ice was not only CO2 levels, but also temperature records based on oxygen isotopes. Both records went back 650,000 years and were recovered from the same trapped air bubbles.

Again, he's jumping around. He talks about how humans can increase CO2, then proceeds to talk about changing temperatures. This is the crap that all politicians do.

It's not jumping around in the least: He's trying to establish the correlation between the temperature and CO2 levels. He's saying that because increased CO2 correlates to increased temperature, and because we can help postpone the increased CO2 (or keep it down permanently), we may be able to help control temperature as well.

How do you know they're melting any faster than they are supposed to?

I didn't say faster than they are 'supposed to' as this implies intelligent design, but faster than they naturally do. Man increases carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide keeps heat trapped in the atmosphere. This heat contributes to the glaciers' melting. This heat is in addition to what would be present without increased CO2 emissions. Therefore, they are melting faster than they naturally would have, 'naturally' meaning without the intereference of man (and assuming another species didn't do it, etc.)

Not on his graph.

It doesn't have to be on the graph to be important. The days were the highest on record, but even consecutive high-temperature and record-setting days aren't enough to increase the average temperature significantly enough to appear as a spike on the graph. Keep in mind that record-setting highs may be by a single degree. But if that happens consistently over the next few years in dozens of areas worldwide, it's most likely something to look into. And that's what's happening.

Whether something is graphed or not, we know for a fact the following: More CO2 means more heat trapped in the atmosphere; increased CO2 is due to humans; humans can stop the increased CO2 and allow nature to equilibrate.

I really do enjoy debating.

As do I.

 

[Squaggleboggin]

Yeah, too bad we didn't have record keeping 1000, 10,000 or even 100,000 years ago

With current technology, we don't need to. While we can't pinpoint temperatures on specific days, we can determine the precise average temperature for the time a bubble was formed in ice, as well as determine when the bubble was formed. In other words, we don't need records dating that far back in the conventional sense. The records to which I refer date back 650,000 years.

 

[DOMS]

I was referring to this: and increased water temperature does provide strength to storms. Here, you support what he said, but added the part about crappy planning (in the first part of the paragraph of course).

I said it would happen, I didn't say that it had anything to do with Katrina.

Not quite. What was recovered from the ice was not only CO2 levels, but also temperature records based on oxygen isotopes. Both records went back 650,000 years and were recovered from the same trapped air bubbles.

Yeah, and if I only go back 2 hours ago, there's a clear cooling trend.

It's not jumping around in the least:

I could buy into that a single example; but there's a point when he's talking about temperatures while still displaying the CO2 graph (at a 45 degree angle) while he's talking. Why not show the near flat temperatue chart? because, if you look at the whole history of global terperatures, right now it would pretty much be flat.

I didn't say faster than they are 'supposed to' as this implies intelligent design, but faster than they naturally do.

Who's talking about intelligent design. If you leave a glass of ice cubes in a room who's ambient temperature is 70 degree is supposed to melt at a certain rate. Don't nitpick.

It doesn't have to be on the graph to be important.

Yet the CO2 is on his graph and he's talking about a clear correlation, which falls apart near the right end.

Whether something is graphed or not, we know for a fact the following: More CO2 means more heat trapped in the atmosphere; increased CO2 is due to humans; humans can stop the increased CO2 and allow nature to equilibrate.

If this were 100% true, and the CO2 levels are through the roof, then were is the corresponding meteoric rise in tempurates? So far they seem to be following an historic trend that started 10,000 years ago and not CO2 levels.

 

[DOMS]

With current technology, we don't need to. While we can't pinpoint temperatures on specific days, we can determine the precise average temperature for the time a bubble was formed in ice, as well as determine when the bubble was formed. In other words, we don't need records dating that far back in the conventional sense. The records to which I refer date back 650,000 years.

Then your records are really useful for determining long-term temperautes.

 

[JOHNYORK]

sorry doms but squaggle is killin it. u sound like a lost bebop debating on the chemistry of a cheetoe.

gore is right. the water level is increasing tremendously compared to history. this might been a better point to use but if u think about his original point of avg temp increasing 1 degree over 100 years its just as good. doms there is no way ure point of avg temp increasing by 1 degree since last ice age every 100 years is correct. a 1 degree avg temp rise in 100 years is incredibly substantial. according to u 2000 years ago avg temp was 20 degrees colder???

 

[Squaggleboggin]

I said it would happen, I didn't say that it had anything to do with Katrina.

It still does, though. One could easily argue that the warmer water is caused by global warming and that Katrina's power was caused by warmer water. Whether you said it would or would not, it did.

Yeah, and if I only go back 2 hours ago, there's a clear cooling trend.

So you could probably accurately predict that, in the next .1108 seconds, it will continue to cool, correct? That's what's going on. You don't need a billion years of data to predict the next 100 years. I see your point, but there's no reason 650,000 years isn't enough data to project the next 100 years. In other words, using the 2 hour example, you should be able to project the next .1108 seconds; compare this to using 650,000 years to project the next 100 years (yes, I did the math).

I could buy into that a single example; but there's a point when he's talking about temperatures while still displaying the CO2 graph (at a 45 degree angle) while he's talking. Why not show the near flat temperatue chart? because, if you look at the whole history of global terperatures, right now it would pretty much be flat.

Probably true, but not really usable in an argument since you have no idea what the actual temperatures were for the whole history of global temperatures.

Just because one rises more quickly than the other doesn't mean it isn't a cause. If you were to graph the number of extra calories consumed in a day to daily weight gain, the graphs certainly wouldn't be identical. In fact, daily weight gain would look relatively flat. But that doesn't mean you can rule out the extra calories as being the cause, or rule out a correlation.

Besides, ppm of CO2 can be measured directly with little other influencing factors; global temperature is affected by many more things and involves the changing of an equilibrium that is most likely much more intricate than trees consuming CO2 and humans producing more of it.

Who's talking about intelligent design. If you leave a glass of ice cubes in a room who's ambient temperature is 70 degree is supposed to melt at a certain rate. Don't nitpick.

That was actually just so you wouldn't nitpick. You can ignore it if you aren't going to. I was just using the phrase 'supposed to' literally, as if someone had planned it, nothing significant.

Yet the CO2 is on his graph and he's talking about a clear correlation, which falls apart near the right end.

I see what you're saying, now. Yes, the correlation certainly isn't as strong near the end (and thankfully so). This leads me to wonder if there is something else which links the CO2 and temperature. However, I think exercising the option of not investigating something with such potentially devastating consequences is beyond foolish.

I'll have to watch it again sometime and pay special attention to the graphs. I kept thinking he would return to explain things (when he wasn't talking about the farm) and then eventually forgot about them.

If this were 100% true, and the CO2 levels are through the roof, then were is the corresponding meteoric rise in tempurates? So far they seem to be following an historic trend that started 10,000 years ago and not CO2 levels.

Again, correlation doesn't mean both are linear or that both will be at the same rate. Correlations in nature are often not perfect, either. Increased CO2 is a fairly easy thing to do. Changing the temperature of so much water and land is extremely difficult due to the rather high specific heat of water and the sheer amount of it. It's evident that temperature will not be able to keep up with the rapid rate at which the CO2 is increasing.

Put a pot of water on the stove with a very small flame: The temperature of the water and the amount of heat you are producing from the flame will probably both climb at a fairly steady rate. Now quadruple the flame. The amount of heat produced will increase more rapidly than the temperature of the water for a while: There is a lag time due to the amount of heat it takes for the water to heat up. I think that may be what's happening here.

Again, if you want to compare a historic trend that started 10,000 years ago, that is addressed in the graphs. The graphs show the trends of ice ages and melting periods a total of seven times. The spike in CO2 here is several times larger than other spikes. If the lagging effect is indeed what's happening, that's not a good thing. If that's not what you were talking about, please specify the trend to which you're referring, keeping in mind that the natural cycle of ice age and warmth is very small compared to what we are currently experiencing. (Or was that graph only of CO2? I honestly don't remember.)

 

[DOMS]

It still does, though. One could easily argue that the warmer water is caused by global warming and that Katrina's power was caused by warmer water. Whether you said it would or would not, it did.

Warm water has exited long before the fad that is global warming. What about the class 5 hurricanes before, and after, it?

So you could probably accurately predict that, in the next .1108 seconds, it will continue to cool, correct?

I now starting to doubt the sincerity of your posts. This makes no sense.

Take, for example, the price of a given stocks. If the the price has been trending down for three years and is now in a minor correction, you'd think that going long would be the wise thing to do. You'd be dead wrong and broke.

So, I'm just giong to select the last two hours worth of data and determine that we're heading into a period of global cooling. It makes sense, where I live it's gone from 28 to 24 degrees. By 6 AM tomorrow, it's be 6 degrees out.

Probably true, but not really usable in an argument since you have no idea what the actual temperatures were for the whole history of global temperatures.

I'm done. I'll answer this last one and stop reading.

This, and the point right before it, show a very selective regconition of facts. Which I don't usually mind, unless it's glaringly so.

I'm simply using the same science, and facts, that he used to graph his 650,000 year chart. So that data is only good for him, but not for me? Or is it only good for 650,000 and screw all the years before it?

Meh...

 

[JOHNYORK]

hmmm will i use my invisibility for good or evil???

 

[BigDyl]

hmmm will i use my invisibility for good or evil???

You should use it to B-BOP PEOPLE SON!

 

[Brachiisaurus]

hmmm will i use my invisibility for good or evil???

When people get owned, it's a natural reaction to lick their wounds.

 

[DOMS]

When people get owned, it's a natural reaction to lick their wounds.

Hi, Foreman.

 

[JOHNYORK]

You should use it to B-BOP PEOPLE SON!

wuts good dyl u still eatin that mothafkin bannanna bread my mom sent u?

 

[BigDyl]

wuts good dyl u still eatin that mothafkin bannanna bread my mom sent u?

Yeah, that shit B-boped my taste buds son.

I just been holdin' it down in NY, south brooklin representin'

 

[Brachiisaurus]

Hi, Foreman.

???

It was just a joke dude, spilling over from the other thread.

 

[BigDyl]

???

It was just a joke dude, spilling over from the other thread.

 

[Squaggleboggin]

Warm water has exited long before the fad that is global warming. What about the class 5 hurricanes before, and after, it?

It was never suggested that the existence of a category 5 hurricane depended on global warming. However, more of them are bound to exist when waters are warmer... which is a result of global warming (allegedly). Not that complicated.

I now starting to doubt the sincerity of your posts. This makes no sense.

I'm actually being completely serious.

If you base 100 years of the future off 650,000 years of the past, it's equivalent proportionally to basing the next .1108 seconds off the last 2 hours (which you used as an example). In other words, there's little doubt that the 2 hours wouldn't be good enough to predict a time period so comparatively tiny. Same for the data being presented in the movie.

So, I'm just giong to select the last two hours worth of data and determine that we're heading into a period of global cooling. It makes sense, where I live it's gone from 28 to 24 degrees. By 6 AM tomorrow, it's be 6 degrees out.

Just read above and hopefully my numbers made a little more sense. I didn't give much of an explanation before.

This, and the point right before it, show a very selective regconition of facts. Which I don't usually mind, unless it's glaringly so.

Once again, I fail to comprehend how 650,000 years of data is insufficient to project the next 100.

I'm simply using the same science, and facts, that he used to graph his 650,000 year chart. So that data is only good for him, but not for me? Or is it only good for 650,000 and screw all the years before it?

Meh...

If you're thinking it's just another cycle of warm and cool, you must've stopped watching much too soon. He shows clearly how massively different today is from any other cycle in the past 7 cycles. I realize that he doesn't have the history of the whole earth. Repeating this won't make me realize it any more since it has been a conscious part of everything I've said. However, it doesn't change the fact that 650,000 years of data is more than enough to project the next 100 years of data to at least some degree of accuracy.

I'm not really sure what else I can say (or at least until you respond).

 

[Squaggleboggin]

hmmm will i use my invisibility for good or evil???

Hey, I appreciate the support. Usually when I discuss something with someone, everyone (or close) disagrees with me.

I never get angry from it, but other people tend to. It completely ruins the discussion and doesn't allow them to make any more points because they're blinded by emotion. That's why I'm glad I'm discussing it with DOMS this time. He's not like that. But I still think there's some degree of misunderstanding between us somewhere. The Internets (had to) is certainly not a perfect means of communication (although it's extremely convenient).

 

[DOMS]

It was never suggested that the existence of a category 5 hurricane depended on global warming. However, more of them are bound to exist when waters are warmer... which is a result of global warming (allegedly). Not that complicated.

So? We get more category 5 hurricanes. Big deal. It was that Katrina was a category 5 that caused so much damage; it was piss-poor planning by government officials. Trying to connect the damage from Katrina to global waring is fear mongering at best, lying at worst.

If you base 100 years of the future off 650,000 years of the past, it's equivalent proportionally to basing the next .1108 seconds off the last 2 hours (which you used as an example). In other words, there's little doubt that the 2 hours wouldn't be good enough to predict a time period so comparatively tiny. Same for the data being presented in the movie.

You're still not getting it.

Okay, by my estimation of the last two hour's temperatures, it's the coldest it's ever been and were doomed to an ice age. Is that the truth? Is it the truth that 2004 was one of the warmest years ever?

I'd love to see you defend this.

If you're thinking it's just another cycle of warm and cool, you must've stopped watching much too soon. He shows clearly how massively different today is from any other cycle in the past 7 cycles. I realize that he doesn't have the history of the whole earth. Repeating this won't make me realize it any more since it has been a conscious part of everything I've said. However, it doesn't change the fact that 650,000 years of data is more than enough to project the next 100 years of data to at least some degree of accuracy.

Sure we can use that data to project where things are going, but unless you take in a sample big enough (which Gore isn't doing), you won't know what it means.

Oh, Lordy! Look what man has done! The Earth has never been this warm!

The conclusion would be wrong.

An additional point: One of Gore's "goals" is to stop the receding of the polar ice caps. But, like I've said before, that started over 10,000 years ago. Yet he never, ever, mentions this. He doesn't because then he, and the global warming chicken littles, could run around crying about how mankind is melting the polar ice caps.

This is just one of the many lies by omission that he does. He is trying to manipulate and cannot be trusted.