Disco Boy wrote:
I don't have problems understanding the English language. But I have problems understanding your own brand of it. Let's call it Caputhglish.
As usual, you only answer the some of the questions I've provided and ignore the rest. And of course, you CONTINUE to indulge in character assassinations with just about every person listed above, automatically assuming they're discredited because they're not necessarily scientists, which doesn't necessarily mean they should be discredited. You can be an expert in a field without a degree or traditional training. And once again, you're compounding global warming with climate change. They are two different things. Not only that, but I never said all 31,000 scientists are funded by world governments (don't ask me the exact quantity that are government funded because I don't know). So your calculation is way off and quite laughable. Also, not all industries are even interested in, let alone preoccupied with funding researchers or scientists, regardless of whether they believe in global warming or not. So when one questions who's funded by who, you'll get quite a variety of answers from a myriad of diverse industries and governments. And once again, MANY scientists agreed with Al Gore's claims and were clearly WRONG.
Actually, I answered every single one of your points - read it again.
Next time you go to hospital for major surgery, then I'm sure you'll be glad to be operated on by somebody who claims to be an expert in his field "without a degree or traditional training", rather than a fully qualified doctor.
It's not me who is confusing global warming with global climate change - it's you, with comments about cold winters in Vancouver.
You mentioned the figures of 31,000 scientists, 30 years and 5 billion dollars, I didn't. Now you seem incapable of saying how "many" of the "many scientists", who are part of the 31,000 scientists (of what, from were?), received the 5 billion dollars over a period of 30 years. Could it be that you might have gotten the 31,000 figure slightly mixed up with another figure or another context?
Perhaps you could help us by telling us where you got these figures from?
Al Gore's figures were based on Dr. Malowski's ( not MANY scientists).
Gore claimed at the time...
"Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap,
during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."
It turns out that even Malowski was unhappy with Gore using this figure, stating afterwards...
“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at... I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”
Apparently...
"Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore."
The same site goes on to state...
"While the disappearance of summer sea ice is difficult to predict, a 2013 review of different approaches (including Maslowski’s) summarized the range of various predictions for the first ice-free summer in the Arctic:
We have investigated three approaches to predicting 21st century summer Arctic sea ice loss as represented by trendsetters, stochasters, and modelers [three quantitative approaches used to make predictions]. At present, it is not possible to completely choose one approach over another as all approaches have strengths and weaknesses. […]
Time horizons for summer sea ice loss of these three approaches turns out to be roughly 2020, 2030, and 2040 respectively for trendsetters, stochasters, and modelers. […]
It is reasonable to conclude that Arctic sea ice loss is very likely to occur in the first rather than the second half of the 21st century, with a possibility of loss within a decade or two."
(
https://www.snopes.com/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/)
Even in Gore's extremely sloppy statement he refers to...
a)
some of the models
b)
suggestc) arctic
summer ice levels will be at 0
d) at a
75% chance.
This is a slightly more measured statement than John Coleman's who you cite in your videos:
'There is no significant global warming and I'm the guy that is just doggone sure of that'.
However, I would agree that Gore was unhelpfully employing propaganda. Which is why Gore is on my list of climate change "experts" who I do not trust.
All the same: which picture shows more ice?
I didn't mention all industries. I said: e.g. fossil fuel companies, logging companies, car companies and some national governments.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
