An Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore is Phony

[Kuciwalker]

Neither of us have any scientific credentials.

xpost

[RGBVideo]

Just out of curiosity - what is your source of evidence that CO2 is to blame for the conditions on venus

BlackCat... when the rest of us actually paid attention during biology classes in elementary school, I guess you spent your time and concentration on trying to masturbate without hands. Your ignorance in this thread has been astonishing, only matched by your arrogance. "NOONE [sic] knows what affects global warming!", and then seriously starting to argue against the knowledge of Oerdin who does geology for his living by saying that "hate to say it, but your knowledge is old"

I mean, do you even know where the term "greenhouse gas" comes from?

[RGBVideo]

Nice try, Don

Originally posted by Donegeal

Do you have to make up your mind about gravity?

Nice. Subtle yet direct. 6/10 with 3 points deducted for attacking something that has no relevance to the point of the post, and one just because I want to be a meany. Good job.

(Al Gore is still a phony...)

but you didin't answer the question

Kuci:

Neither of us have any scientific credentials.

Well, if we start actually looking the definition of the word "credential", I think this is correct. I was just trying to make a point that I inherintly trust Gore's expertise more than yours just because of his education and I think others here to do the same thing, something you don't seem to be realizing.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Because Gore never claimed to have done any of this research himself. He is reporting what he has learned and, as a politician, he is lobbying in favour of it. Furthermore, his points are based on arguments from authority, in fact it is his goal that we start listening to scientific authorities rather than pop-science, industry-payroll pundits.

You really ought to at least listen to what Gore has to say rather than bash him outright.

...

You're attacking Berz for attacking Gore for attacking the messenger, because he's attacking the messenger. You're the one who needs to look over the situation again...

[Jaguar]

You're just saying that because you're jealous of Al Gore.

[joncha]

[RGBVideo]

You're just saying that because you're jealous of Al Gore.

You need to look at the context. Gore was attacking them because of who they were working for, where they received their money and thus motivation to question Gore's movie with red herrings and arguments debunked many times before during the last three decades. Berz was attacking Gore because... because? "he's a phony"! "Al Gore is full of shit"! Michael Dukakis -- weak on crime!

[Jaguar]

No, it's Kuci who's jealous of Al Gore.

Berzerker is maybe only a little bit jealous of Al Gore.

On the Al Gore Jealousy Index, (AGJI) Berz gets maybe a 3.7 out of ten (a little bit jealous) whereas Kuci gets a 7.8 (very jealous.)

[Berzerker]

Hey, Atlantis didn't exist 9,000 years before Plato, those Atlanteans must be responsible for that long period of global warming 140,000 years ago.

So 130,000 years ago it was warmer than today? Hmm... Imagine that. But CO2 is much higher than it was then, so why aren't we alot warmer? As for the suggestion CO2 goes up before temperature, what is the mechanism? Cant be volcanoes because temps go down with increased outgassing.

I think the connection that people are making here is hilarious.

"Al Gore is a phony" so therefore there is no such thing as global warming.

No one here has claimed global warming doesn't exist. You just cant debate the issues raised by Gore's critics so you pretend they deny global warming. Several of you pull this ****, no wonder you're defending that phony.

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

See above, and learn to debate without creating strawmen.

The junk science being peddled here is yours.

I see, but showing calving as evidence of global warming is true science? What "junk science" have I peddled?

I quoting this because it needs to be said again.

No, it was a waste the first time. The guy up in Canada cited by Olberman was not a mechanical engineer, he's a paleo-climatologist - one of those guys who study ancient climates - certainly a better resume than Vice President. And the 2nd guy is a glacialogist from Finland.

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.

Ice core data goes back much further and the isotopes are from gas bubbles trapped in the ice.



VG

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.

These 2 guys had valid complaints about Gore's claims and instead of addressing those claims Gore smeared them. Dont give me that BS excuse for what he did. Gore doesn't know much at all about the subject, if he had he would have responded - and looked smart. He reacted like a propagandist, not a seeker of truth.

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.

This round of warming began around 14,000 years ago with temporary reversals caused by massive flooding from breaking glacial dams, reduced solar activity, increased volcanic activity, etc.... We dont cause global warming, we contribute to the trend upward and hopefully in the future reduce the impact when we head back into an ice advance...but I doubt it.

Today the Earth's axial tilt is about 23.5 degrees, but the tilt varies between 21.5 and 24.5 degrees over thousands of years. We're heading toward the 21.5 degree minimum and as we get closer to it we'll cool and ice sheets will grow as less sun hits the higher latitudes. And due to precession, summer in the northern hemisphere changes over time so that northern summers occur when the Earth is further from the sun. It is believed the mini ice age was caused by a 5 x increase in volcanic activity compared to now and a marked reduction in solar output. I believe the astronomical cycles are called Milankovich Cycles.

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.

He offered no proof for anything he said, not even the comments questioning their integrity. And I'm not a scientist but I know what calving is and why it happens. He's a politician pushing an agenda supposedly based in science, damn right he better know the subject and not look like just another political hack smearing people who raise inconvenient truthes.

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

Thats right, its all those damn leaf cutter ants. No, its termites...

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.

Thats why we look at the paleoclimate record to look for cyclical changes in climate and why they happen. And we can view a world where human intervention was minimal by looking at those isotopes trapped in ice cores. They tell when the ice expanded in the past, and when it receded.

[-Jrabbit]

No one here has claimed global warming doesn't exist.

So Berz, are you actually saying that global warming IS happening, that it IS something we should be concerned about?

And all this fuss is just because you just can't stand Al Gore? Jeez.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, a little much for just simply disliking a fellow.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Hey, Atlantis didn't exist 9,000 years before Plato, those Atlanteans must be responsible for that long period of global warming 140,000 years ago.

So 130,000 years ago it was warmer than today? Hmm... Imagine that. But CO2 is much higher than it was then, so why aren't we alot warmer? As for the suggestion CO2 goes up before temperature, what is the mechanism? Cant be volcanoes because temps go down with increased outgassing.

Should I even bother, or are you just convinced that everything Al Gore supports must be a lie?

I see, but showing calving as evidence of global warming is true science? What "junk science" have I peddled?

Of course, it's hideously wrong. It would be like showing a smoker with lung cancer! It could be totally unrelated to the smoking

These 2 guys had valid complaints about Gore's claims and instead of addressing those claims Gore smeared them. Dont give me that BS excuse for what he did. Gore doesn't know much at all about the subject, if he had he would have responded - and looked smart. He reacted like a propagandist, not a seeker of truth.

He's a politician, not a scientist. How does being a propagandist make him a phony? If the last decade has taught me nothing else, it's that good science without appropriate PR support will be shot apart by right-wingers with enough money to fund their own propaganda efforts.

This round of warming began around 14,000 years ago with temporary reversals caused by massive flooding from breaking glacial dams, reduced solar activity, increased volcanic activity, etc.... We dont cause global warming, we contribute to the trend upward and hopefully in the future reduce the impact when we head back into an ice advance...but I doubt it.

But in contributing, we're destroying ecosystems that have never had to deal with climate change at this speed. Between this and our water pollution we're destroying a great many coral reefs, that have easily survived previous warming periods. The deforestation we've caused has almost certainly screwed up whatever process is normally supposed to take place when warming happens like this.

Thats why we look at the paleoclimate record to look for cyclical changes in climate and why they happen. And we can view a world where human intervention was minimal by looking at those isotopes trapped in ice cores. They tell when the ice expanded in the past, and when it receded.

The trouble is there's many cycles at work, and some things that aren't cyclical too (meteorite impacts, volcanic activity, etc.). And quite frankly, we're in uncharted territory now due to unprecedented CO2 levels (well, ok maybe not unprecedented, but higher than in any period in which we have data about the other factors as well).

[Ramo]

I saw the movie recently. It was excellent, and I highly recommend it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13438740/

I just looked at the transcript. Regarding the supposed lack of coorelation between CO2 levels and temperature, Olbermann cited some guys from a podunk Canuck school without even naming them or the journal that the paper was published in. I'm not sure how Gore was supposed to on the spot refute a study that he was given no details on, including the names of the authors.

And no, Gore certainly didn't "smear" these scientists. He said that the studies that assert that humans do not significantly contribute to global warming make up a tiny portion of papers on global warming published in peer reviewed journals, but they are given a huge megaphone due to industrial interests bent on pretending that this link does not exist.

[q]I have a question: what determines the strength/severity of hurricanes and the hurricane season?[//q]

Hurricanes are basically Carnot engines powered by the heat of the ocean's surface. I mentioned in the last hurricane/global warming thread that last year I read a fascinating paper published in Nature which showed an extremely strong coorelation between sea surface temperatures and power dissapation of tropical storms.

[Berzerker]

So Berz, are you actually saying that global warming IS happening, that it IS something we should be concerned about?

And all this fuss is just because you just can't stand Al Gore? Jeez.

You sound surprised, what have you been reading (because it aint my posts)? Yes, and no... Global warming is happening, has happened, and will happen in the future - and I'm not concerned. Thats what the world does when we aren't covered with ice. And all this fuss is about Al Gore smearing 2 scientists who challenged his claims instead of responding to their questions. Actually, alot of the fuss is coming from people who have no problem with Gore smearing scientists when they dont agree with his claims.

Olbermann cited some guys from a podunk Canuck school

How nice, everyone knows only Harvard trained "paleo-climatologists" are qualified to publicly discuss the known research, much less challenge Gore. Dont look now, but the world's foremost expert on polar bears teaches at some podunk school in Canada (or maybe not). If someone discredits you instead of your argument by citing your podunk school, would you consider that a smear? Or lying scum on the take from special interests?

I'm not sure how Gore was supposed to on the spot refute a study that he was given no details on, including the names of the authors.

Olberman wasn't citing studies, he was quoting 2 scientists which he named. It was a very simple point, calving occurs normally regardless of any humans and it is not evidence of global warming. Gore's response: smear the guy.

Thx y'all, you've restored my lack of faith in liberals.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Berzerker


You sound surprised, what have you been reading (because it aint my posts)? Yes, and no... Global warming is happening, has happened, and will happen in the future - and I'm not concerned. Thats what the world does when we aren't covered with ice. And all this fuss is about Al Gore smearing 2 scientists who challenged his claims instead of responding to their questions. Actually, alot of the fuss is coming from people who have no problem with Gore smearing scientists when they dont agree with his claims.

Smearing is a strong word to use for pointing out that someone has an ulterior motive for pushing his point of view.

How nice, everyone knows only Harvard trained "paleo-climatologists" are qualified to publicly discuss the known research, much less challenge Gore. Dont look now, but the world's foremost expert on polar bears teaches at some podunk school in Canada (or maybe not). If someone discredits you instead of your argument by citing your podunk school, would you consider that a smear? Or lying scum on the take from special interests?

That would depend on whether or not I were taking money from special interests to push my views, now wouldn't it?