He is full of it.

i love all the scientists who know the ice isnt shrinking because they read some article about something completely different.

fact the arctic ice is shrinking. will it vanish in 5 years ? who knows , but the fact the ice is shrinking is indisputable.


---------------
for reference

The satellites have been monitoring the Arctic for the past 25 years. The surface covered by ice during the summer, when the ice-sea is the smallest, has been gradually shrinking. In early 1980s, it measured around 8 million square km; in 2005 a historic minimum of less than 5.5 million square km was recorded.

argue that its global warming or not , argue that it doesn't matter but DON'T bother arguing that the ice is not shrinking at the north pole

its true that in the last three years it has cooled to about what it was in 2000, but its done that several times over the last century only to start rising again, Al Gore will most likely be right on this one judging by the evidence

:2 cents:

Skate (SSN-578), surfaced at the North Pole, 17 March 1959.

Seadragon (SSN-584), foreground, and her sister Skate (SSN-578) during a rendezvous at the North Pole in August 1962. Note the men on the ice beyond the submarines.

Comparing those pictures does nothing for me, other than showing me submarines surfaced at the north pole in '59 and '62, a whole three years apart.

Fantastic find, man.

We'll have to learn to live without snow and ice at the North Pole. Grin and bear it.

They weren't meant to compare to each other. They were meant to compare to now. The point is that the north pole has been ice free before. Anything Al Gore says is just an attempt to manufacture a crisis.

Arctic ice may be melting but Antarctic ice is growing.

Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away.
April 18, 2009: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...57-401,00.html

Report: Antarctic Ice Growing, Not Shrinking
April 18, 2009: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html

To be fair parts of it are indeed over land, sure not the actual north pole but there are lots of parts of the entire ice cap there are indeed over ground. So yes it would effect ocean levels in some way.

Personally the rise of ocean levels would not bother me that much, sure it would fuck up some areas and cities on the coastlines. However I would not be pleased with how it would effect the salinity of the ocean and potential how the convection cycle works.

Also the articles quoted do not state what people are claiming either. I do not follow Gore nor believe in the majority of his hype. I personally have other environmental reasons for why I would like to keep pollution down and it does not matter to me if it is man made, sunspots, orbital fluctuations, or whatever. I can not find a single valid reason to use more than I need, nor pollute the planet just because we can and are to lazy not to find better ways.

WTF? So you're saying that it's colder now than it was during the ice age? I thought we were on a global average temperature UPswing due to natural cyclical fluctuations ever since the ice age ended. Or is that just BS?

but what about polar bears?

No what he is saying is that he is quoting something that is entirely unproven. Only thing the ice core samples may or may not show - aside from many climate changes in the region, is that the very southern tip may have supported some fauna and thus the Icelandic settlements.

What I was saying is that our planet is a very complex system, way more complex than the simplistic model Al Gore is selling. Numerous factors influence both weather and climate; the sun, seismic/volcanic activity, the oceans, ocean methane releases, the strength of the magnetic poles, precession,... All those factors (and more) have been influencing our climate for a lot longer than the small period (150 years of man producing carbon dioxide) that Al Gore focuses on. Those factors have been causing warmer (like the medieval warmth period*) and colder periods (ice ages) since the day the earth was formed.

* During the wmp wine grapes were grown in Britain. Chaucer mentioned them in the opening lines of the Canterbury Tales and there are records of French landowners and nobles complaining to the king of France about the fact that imported English wine was competing with their own wine.
* Archaeologists have found beatles in the north of england, that now only live in the Mediterranean.

Oh yeah "very may well be gone in 5 years" taken out of context or "will disappear in 5 years" same thing!

oh, smokey...

http://stupidanswerstogreatquestions...bear-copy2.jpg

http://pic.bgstuff.net/data/media/68...out-no-wj9.jpg

huh ? .....

They very well may become extinct

http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/ocean..._250_60230.jpg

Global warming, man made? no
Global warming, natural part of the cycle in our solar system? yes
Do Al Gore & co know this? yes
Why then? money..

Never thought I'd see the day when a majority of porn pushers became Rush Limbaughs parrot.

Can't argue with the man that killed the Manbearpig. If he says they're gone in 5 years then it must be true.

1) The arctic sheet ice grows and shrinks every year and jumps around from year to year, some times by more than 50%. What is important is the long term trend... Like a thousand years or more.

2) You need to look at credible sources not Fox news, or some blog, or some scientist that has taken up lobbying work for money. The media is absolute worst place to look for real scientific information. The media is dominated by spin and disinformation and they sell controversy.

3) It's important to look at what scientists that study and work in the field of climatology have to say. A physicist, or engineer, or weatherman may have a nice respectable degree, but they don't study climatology. Science is highly specialized and what matters is the opinion of people that research and publish on climatology in legitimate peer review journals.

A good start would be two most reputable scientific journals: "Science" and "Nature". These Journal have been around for more than 100 years and they take their science very serious. They don't publish to get headlines or sell advertising. All their articles are peer reviewed.

You also need to look at what the professional Scientific Academies are saying. The two oldest and most prominent are The American Academy of Science (in the US) and the Royal Academy (in GB/Europe).

What is amazing is that if you look at the scientific literature and the established journals you get a COMPLETELY different picture that what the general public believes. Surveys show that about 95% of climatologist believe global warming is real. The same surveys show that about 50-60% of the general public thinks GW is total BS.

The numbers are very similar to evolution. Most all biologist will say that evolution is real, but 50% the general public thinks it's BS. Give me 5 minutes and I can dig up tons of very legitimate looking pseudo science that says Evolution is a big conspiracy.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Do they believe it's man made global warming?

Yes, anthropogenic.

Here is a scan of the Gallop Poll.

http://bucksdelux.com/random/climate_change.pdf

GORE spam

http://drakkenclan.com/images/gore.jpg

Hi there:winkwink:

this was a good one:winkwink:

Al Gore is correct.

Al Gore is not a scientist. Al Gore is not a climatologist.

All Gore has a financial interest, which is a major conflict of interest!!

Al Gore flies around in private jets and lives in a mansion.

All Gore is a freakin hypocrite with little credibility.

lol, you just don't like him because you are a huge "Republican" who's all wrapped up in the bullshit 2-party paradigm distraction. If it was John McCain saying similar shit you'd probably agree. Dumbass party-man.

wwhat a pig bear man shit of men :D

Time to switch from online marketing to the boat business...smart talk right there.

Bullshit

it is probably the biggest single challenge to the world and environment we live in...
come on people, get educated and dont believe everyone is out to get your money.

Maybe you missed the recently hacked emails?

"Former Vice President Al Gore has built a Green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms. And the US portion is headed up by a former Gore staffer and fund raiser who previously ran afoul of both the FEC and the DOJ, before Janet Reno jumped in and shut down an investigation during the Clinton years.

Think Katie, Charlie, or Brian will be all over this tonight? Regardless, that was just the tip of the questionably melting iceberg as reported by Bill Hobbs in Nashville, Tennessee:

How Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe...

Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.

Fascinating. So, as Dr. Global Warming travels the world in his private jet while spending 20 times the average American on energy for his home, all the time telling us its okay because he?s buying carbon offsets, he?s actually purchasing these investments from himself.

Furthermore, and maybe more important, Gore stands to benefit financially in a potentially huge way if more and more people buy into this junk science."

http://newsbusters.org/node/11149