Field of Science

Global warming is real

Global warming, or more extensively, global climate change, is very real. When some crackpot says it just ain't so, I think someone must show that it just is.

Talking about the logic behind the Big Bang evidence (okay, really just saying that he is talking about the logic), Jake Jones says
The same kind of logic that Al Gore and his people apply to the "Global Warming" theory. Oh my....I'm shaking like a leaf....and it's because the Arctic ice is at the same level now as in 1979 the same year that the same scientists predicted a possible mini Ice Age (Google it). Al Gore's theory on Global Warming is just that, not much different than Darwin's "Theory" of Evolution, but that's another article.
But here's the evidence:

The arctic ice-cap is disappearing.
From The Vanishing of the Arctic Ice Cap.


  1. Al Gore very recently said that the northern polar ice cap will be completely gone in five years. To view the video, visit my site and click on the picture of Al Gore holding up five fingers.

    It seems like a rather risky prediction on his part. In five years, if it doesn't happen, he'll either have to admit he was wrong or take credit for saving the planet. Hmmmmmmmm, wonder which one he'll do???

    1. Actually he said “Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Here's video of the speech:

  2. Dash RIProck III, ignoring all fears of Poe's law, I will take your comment and your site seriously, and reply that if Al Gore is wrong about the ice-cap disappearing in five years, then he is going to have to say he's happy to be wrong about that. But only about that. On your site you say

    Al Gore has predicted that the northern polar
    ice cap might well be gone in five years. The
    Hoot would like to be the first to predict that
    when it doesn't happen, Gore will take credit
    for saving the world instead of admitting to
    being 100% wrong.

    By "100% wrong" you wouldn't by any chance be attempting to sneak in a corollary that if he is wrong about his five year prediction, then he is also wrong about global warming in general, would you?

  3. The intent was to suggest that he will be 100% wrong about the northern polar ice cap being gone in five years.

    By "global warming in general" do you specifically mean anthropengic global warming?

  4. By "global warming in general" do you specifically mean anthropengic global warming?

    No, caused by anything. That's why I said "in general".

    Let's reconvene here in January five years from now...


Markup Key:
- <b>bold</b> = bold
- <i>italic</i> = italic
- <a href="">FoS</a> = FoS