An Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore is Phony

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Of course it is - that I guess everyone agrees on. Only thing is that noone has a clue wether its due to local variations, global variations or human impact.

That's blatantly wrong. Local variations can be ruled out by the simple fact that glaciers have been receding everywhere. The only possible doubt is whether the rise in global temperatures is due to man or nature, and there are lots of people who have at least a clue about that one

Really, I would say the part we understand least is what the earth would be doing right now if humans weren't around. I've seen studies suggesting that our activities are overpowering a global cooling and some saying our activities are augmenting a natural global warming.

Also, to those claiming that humans are like ants on a geological scale, what was the last mass extinction caused by ants? Humans have already exterminated a greater proportion of other species than the meteor that killed the dinosaurs. And, if we really wanted to, or just plain did something stupid we could turn the whole planet radioactive for at least thousands of years (and wipe out almost all other life left). Do ants have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the entire surface of the Earth several times over?

BS. Mainly because the claim that tobacco don't cause cancer is debunked. Why else putting all those warnings on the packages ?

Those two aren't comparable since it of course is dangerous to inhale toxic fumes, while there are only indicies that human impact may cause harm.

And in the 1970s, people had the same doubts about the dangers of smoking. By the time all the doubters of global warming are convinced, it will be far too late to stop the worst of the warming.

[Sandman]

Of course it is - that I guess everyone agrees on. Only thing is that noone has a clue wether its due to local variations, global variations or human impact.

Yes, it's all down to urban heat islands. Those snooty professors in their universities never go out into the country where the god-fearin' farm folk live.

[Berzerker]

Oh the irony of this thread...

complaining about Al Gore's "smearing" of these two critics... but yet, you are doing the same thing...

He smeared them... he accused them of corruption and then claimed the scientific research refutes them when it doesn't. How does one point this out and not "smear" Al Gore? By that logic every criticism of Bush is a smear regardless of merit...

There is no season on record that ever had 26 frikkin' tropical cyclones. Furthermore, hurricane data from that period is rather unreliable.

It was reliable enough to make it into a documentary on the mini ice age.

Do you believe the Earth is flat, too?

No, but I believe the world has cooled and warmed repeatedly and will continue doing so regardless of people. And junk science should be condemned, not defended because the phony trying to pollute our minds is a liberal.

I'm scared to give a scientific answer in case you disagree with politically, which would make me a phony

Al Gore didn't give them (or us) a scientific answer, he accused them of dishonesty and ignored their points - a political response. You accuse me of doing what Gore did?

but the fact that it's Al Gore delivering the message seems to override the facts

Maybe if he knew what he was talking about and used that knowledge instead of smearing critics, the "facts" wouldn't be ignored... like he ignored the facts presented for him to address.
I swear this is like Bible thumpers responding to any criticism with "The Bible says so"...

Using footage of calving glaciers was done to make a point, not as hard, damning evidence of global warming. The oil company employee/climatology "expert" who points this out is engaging in the classic strawman technique, deflecting attention from the scientific issue by criticizing the filmmaker's dramatization.

It was a Finnish glaciologist who explained calving, and it isn't evidence of global warming. Hell, I've studied the subject enough to know calving occurs regardless of human existence.

And yet you criticize Gore for pointing out his critic's prejudicial affiliation. What, that's not allowed?

What prejudicial affiliation? He offered no proof these guys were bribed to do studies.

Hate on Gore and his movie all you want. His goal was to raise awareness of the global warming issue, and (despite the dilettantes who would rather talk about Gore himself) the effort seems quite successful.

I dont hate Gore or his movie, he's just a phony. We constantly hear calls from the left to let science inform us when deciding issues, but now science aint so important because Al Gore is raising awareness.

I would say the part we understand least is what the earth would be doing right now if humans weren't around.

Actually thats what we understand the best, the world would be warming. Thats what the world does during inter-glacial periods. We have an extensive record showing this, and we've identified a bunch of factors with human activity being just one.

[snoopy369]

I think you guys are ignoring the most important argument of Berz's.

If the world is heading towards an Ice Age (or at least a mini- one) in the next few hundred years, do we perhaps WANT to step up these 'global warming' efforts just a tad? If global temperatures lower such that glaciers start advancing on Canada ...

[JimmyCracksCorn]

I think you are ignoring the fact that Berz is basing his rebuttal on faulty science, inspired in large part by the energy industry's payroll.

Berz needs to account for the fact that CO2 levels are directly correlative with global temperatures - a fact which is undisputed. He also needs to account for the fact that CO2 levels are currently above and beyond what they have ever been either before, during or after the past 6 ice ages of the past million years - as well as the fact that this level is and has been rising exponentially for the past hundred years of industrialization.

Until he can account for these, his arguments are baseless.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Donegeal
While I have yet to truly make up my mind on this issue, the thread title has merit.

Do you have to make up your mind about gravity?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I swear this is like Bible thumpers responding to any criticism with "The Bible says so"...

This is the only true thing you've said, provided you are talking about yourself.

The junk science being peddled here is yours.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
I think you are ignoring the fact that Berz is basing his rebuttal on faulty science, inspired in large part by the energy industry's payroll.

Berz needs to account for the fact that CO2 levels are directly correlative with global temperatures - a fact which is undisputed. He also needs to account for the fact that CO2 levels are currently above and beyond what they have ever been either before, during or after the past 6 ice ages of the past million years - as well as the fact that this level is and has been rising exponentially for the past hundred years of industrialization.

Not that I disagree with you, but how do they know CO2 levels weren't higher in the past?

ACK!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
The Canada Free Press article in question is here:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

The article was written by “Tom Harris who is a mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company.” A company whose primary client is the Canadian Energy Industry. This, of course, isn't mentioned anywhere in the article.

It should also be noted that the Canada Free Press once cited the Onion to substantiate a claim. In other words, its junk news.

Kuci: Its about the message, not the messenger - even though your attack on Gore reek of jealousy.

I quoting this because it needs to be said again. As Victor previously said 95%+ of all real climate scientists have agreed that the Earth is warming and it is mostly due to human activity. The energy industry and many right wing nut jobs have bankrolled crap "science" studies which are designed to pretend there is not concensus in the scientific community. This is exactly like the "Intelligent Design" theists.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Berzerker
No, but I believe the world has cooled and warmed repeatedly and will continue doing so regardless of people. And junk science should be condemned, not defended because the phony trying to pollute our minds is a liberal.

Funny that, I thought there were people worldwide who were studying climate change, and who were alerting people on the man-made effects on the environment. Yes, including places where nobody cares about Al Gore.

Oh, I guess I was wrong then. Al Gore must have invented global warming just like he did the Internet...

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
And the Pentagon which concluded that humans are the primary cause of global warming and that global warming is the most significant threat to the United States today and for the foreseable future.

So nice to see that you now have begun to trust the Pentagon.

Whould a thunk it?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Tuberski


Not that I disagree with you, but how do they know CO2 levels weren't higher in the past?

ACK!

Ice cores are great for this though they only go back around 35,000 years. Also the oxygen isotope ratios found in paleo-water (that is water which has been trapped in geologic formations much as oil or gas gets trapped) can tell us a lot about what the climate was like when the water got sequestered.

[Tuberski]

Thank you, Oerdin.

ACK!

[PLATO]

Originally posted by BlackCat
BS. Mainly because the claim that tobacco don't cause cancer is debunked. Why else putting all those warnings on the packages ?

Al Gore...1988:

"Throughout most of my life, I raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I've hoed it. I've dug in it. I've sprayed it, I've chopped it, I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it.

-Newsday-02/26/88

Just thought I'd through that in there.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Berzerker


He smeared them... he accused them of corruption and then claimed the scientific research refutes them when it doesn't. How does one point this out and not "smear" Al Gore? By that logic every criticism of Bush is a smear regardless of merit...

At some point you get tired of arguing with people propped up by conservatives with an interest in muddying up the science. That's their tactic. They reapeat their faulty science often enough that you just lose patience. The first few times, they get refuted, then the real scientists and people on the side of truth just get sick of taking these guys seriously, and then the stooges claim that they're being smeared or whatnot. It's a war of spin against science, and it's sickening how long the spin holds out.

No, but I believe the world has cooled and warmed repeatedly and will continue doing so regardless of people. And junk science should be condemned, not defended because the phony trying to pollute our minds is a liberal.

That it can happen naturally doesn't mean we aren't causing this round of warming. See my lung cancer example. This round of warming is faster than natural warming and species that have generally adapted to warmings in the past simply can not adapt to the speed of the current round of warming.

Al Gore didn't give them (or us) a scientific answer, he accused them of dishonesty and ignored their points - a political response. You accuse me of doing what Gore did?

Gore is a politician not a scientist. Expecting him to point out the flaws in their argument is a bit much if he can point out that they've been paid off by the right to spread lies.

It was a Finnish glaciologist who explained calving, and it isn't evidence of global warming. Hell, I've studied the subject enough to know calving occurs regardless of human existence.

You know what else happens without human intervention? Deforestation. Fires and other natural phenomena can cause this. Clearly, due to the fact that it can happen naturally, any claim that humans are responsible for the dissappearance of a large portion of the Amazon rainforest is obviously wrong

Actually thats what we understand the best, the world would be warming. Thats what the world does during inter-glacial periods. We have an extensive record showing this, and we've identified a bunch of factors with human activity being just one.

Actually, natural warming and cooling cycles are a result of very many factors and what the world would be doing right now without human activity is rather hard to explain given that we can't observe the world without human intervention.

If the world is heading towards an Ice Age (or at least a mini- one) in the next few hundred years, do we perhaps WANT to step up these 'global warming' efforts just a tad? If global temperatures lower such that glaciers start advancing on Canada ...

But we know the world is warming at the moment. That much is blatantly obvious, regardless of whether you believe humans are causing it.

So nice to see that you now have begun to trust the Pentagon.

Whould a thunk it?

Yeah, those crazies probably think the sky is blue too!