Science & social aspects of climate change pt 1

[indulis1]

News flash! Climate skeptic proves that "substandard" temp stations don't affect the measured warming trend. Search on Mueller Congress 31 March 2011. Other news to hand- climate skeptics forced to concede that their UAH satellite based temperature trends had to be adjusted upwards due to errors in their calculations- they did not adjust for changes in the orbits of the satellites, and had s sign wrong in a calculation.

[indulis1]

@indulis1 Sorry search on Muller Congress 31 March 2011

[pseudotruth]

@MrOTLChump

Please provide p/r evidence that this satellite data is used in global temperate measurement.

[MrOTLChamp]

@pseudotruth The fact is your pseudo-scientist screw up the temp readings like the installation of land based sensors, as well as the faulty satellite sensors, and I'm supposed to try and convince you that they matter? You should already know they matter. For the last ten years the satellite sensors were off, and is it just a coincidence that they are reporting that the last decade was the warmist ever recorded? How can you ignore that?

[pseudotruth]

@MrOTLChamp

Your bogus claims are lies. The SECONDARY satellites you mention are not used in any global temperature measurement. They are not used in either the RSS or UAH satellite measurements and are not used in either the GISSTemp or Hadley surface temperature datasets.

The trouble is that your vague lies are reliant on rhetoric and have no substance. that's why you can't provide any facts to back them up.

The burden of proof lies with you. Prove it or you're a liar.

[MrOTLChamp]

@pseudotruth We have already proved that your land based sensors were installed incorrectly( by scientist that should know how to install them) The HadleyCRU also was jacking up there temps across Russia, and now the NOAA satellites were faulty. And you're just going to claim they don't use those temperatures? LMAO Prove it.

[pseudotruth]

@MrOTLChamp

You made the claim, now you must prove it. Show the proof that the data was used in global temperature measurements. That means the data trail to the particular global temperature dataset(s) where you claim it was used. Merely claiming something proves nothing.

That's why you can't and won't provide proof. And no proof means you're not being honest.

[pseudotruth]

@MrOTLChamp

The very clear evidence is that substandard temperature stations show less warming than the standard ones. Photographs don't measure temperatures. Read the science.

Your rhetoric isn't matched by reality.

[MrOTLChamp]

@pseudotruth "The very clear evidence is that substandard temperature stations show less warming than the standard ones" What the hell does that mean? lol Your substandard satellite sensors were measuring 10-15deg higher. Not lower. The land based temps that were installed wrong by your scientist were also reading high, because they were installed next to AC units, parking lots, on roof tops, etc. It's impossible for them to measure lower. Again, address the issues I have brought up.

[pseudotruth]

@MrOTLChamp

Full marks for your rhetoric; BS & bluster, but zero for facts.

You still show no proof for your claims. And no proof means you're not telling the truth.

Try reading some science for once. Menne et al. Discussion and link here:

tiny. cc slash SKSSurfaceTempRecord

[pseudotruth]

@MrOTLChamp

You cannot or won't understand. You refuse to show evidence the satellites you mention are used for global temperature measurement. Why not? Because you cannot prove your dishonest claims. You don't even understand that surface temperature stations are not satellites. Hint: satellites are in space, ground stations are on the ground.

[MrOTLChamp]

@pseudotruth No kidding they are different. I'm pointing out that two methods of temp readings have been false. I'm not saying they are the same. Not to mention that the HadleyCRU satellite temps were also wrong across Russia, which was pointed out by the Russians themselves. I'm pretty sure the Russians know their own temps better than CRU. Your science is completely flawed, and you continue to drink the cool-aid as if it's vitamin water. LMAO

[pseudotruth]

The surfacestations stupidity proved the exact opposite of its rhetoric.

[ReduceGHGs]

carter has ties to corporate carbon industries and has never completed a study on how humans are warming the planet. I asked him. With a little research his history is very telling. One of the best sites for a summary is good old Wikipedia. And here's an article that also helps.

.

Google: Refuting claims that climate forecasts are all up in the air

.

It is sad and immoral that the vested corporate interests are willing to sacrifice future generations for business-as-usual.

[toonygragari]

try asian women  #lushfmlk.info#

[adriasanthus]

Online Asian girls  #lushfmlk.info#

[yohanpetior]

Asian ladies online  #lushfmlk.info#

[affluenceclm]

Free Energy is real and its here! The Oil companies r doing everything they can to stop this

information. If you want a Free energy magnet motor , get the blueprints at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM , Join the

revolution!

[181183R20710]

Yep, debunking class 1: if you can't discuss the matter, attack the person. Nice try, guys.

[kenzboard]

Assuming AGW theory is correct, even if you eliminate all countries carbon emissions (good luck with that)...slowing/mitigating warming would seem so minor that it really would not be worth all the work to do it. Nor would we ever be able to detect it. Or care about it. But since we are obsessive creatures stuck on a planet with nothing better to do but get hysterical about little stuff...I guess this isn't the end of the world after all. Phew! Bring on an ice age - that's a worthy challenge.

[bighugejake]

I agree that the sources of social propaganda are not science and don't teach children science, but GW is a real problem and should be taught using fact and not exaggeration, tabloidism or propaganda.

[aerobique]

watch?v=xvMmPtEt8dc

carter is a shill

[GuitarGirlWA]

@aerobique Your link did not change my mind. 1) CO2 GOOD FOR PLANET 2) Our TOTAL contribution to G/house gasses 0.28%, 0.117% of that is CO2. 3) Even if we stopped carbon emissions there would still be 99.72% of g/house gasses that we have NO CONTROL OF. 4) Carbon Trading schemes will weaken our faltering economy. 5) Al Gore will be a carbon billionaire. 6) Polar bear numbers increasing 7) Glaciers are growing. Stop focusing on the sh!t that doesn't matter and focus on the facts that do matter.

[aerobique]

@GuitarGirlWA

wow-!, ALL points you listed here are simply perversions of reality. Awesome.

Damn glenn beck university

by the way: First half of 2010 breaks the thermometer 2010 Will Be The Hottest Year on Record— despite “recent minimum of solar irradiance”

NASA July 10, 2010

This June the average sea ice extent was the lowest on record. A "dramatic decline" over the last 30 years. Thicker ice now only makes up 10%! That's down from 30% to 40% in the 1980s and 1990s. (!)

[GuitarGirlWA]

@aerobique Sorry sir, but your statements are a perversion of reality also. The planet is recovering from an ice age so you would expect higher temperatures. While you can point out that we had the "hottest year on record" The prior winter had record cold snaps also. All that is fantastic, but it does nothing to prove that man is causing it, simply that CLIMATE HAS NEVER BEEN A CONSTANT THING THROUGHOUT HISTORY.  The fact is, the sun controls our weather, more CO2 = better crops not dead ppl

[aerobique]

@GuitarGirlWA

IT A CONSPIRACY!!!

[GuitarGirlWA]

@aerobique *sigh* maybe you should ask why EU's economy is failing harder thanks to carbon trading schemes, ECONOMISTS UNANIMOUSLY AGREE CARBON TRADING SCHEMES WILL WEAKEN OUR ECONOMIES FURTHER, why then is Al Gore set to become a carbon billionaire? His household uses 17 more times energy than the avg household, he continued to drive a V8 right up until it was POINTED OUT THAT HE WAS A HYPOCRITE, so essentially, he can continue to be a carbon hog while the rest of the world must clean up?

[MrOTLChamp]

@aerobique Looks like all the warmist predictions of the earth warming have been wrong. Gee, what a surprise...NOT! Thats what happens when you make up bs to try and scam the people out of their taxes with the failed hypothesis of Co2 driving temperatures. Co2 has never driven temperatures and never will. Past history proves that, when Co2 levels were nearly 20x's higher and the earth did not continue to rise

[aerobique]

@MrOTLChamp

without destroying the rest of the cornynonsense you guys love to believe and repeat....

2010 was the warmest year since begin of the records...its official

[MrOTLChamp]

@aerobique How many years are you actually going back to make such a claim. Daily records didn't even start to happen until the mid 1800's. And it was very limited. Therefore, saying it's the hottest on record is meaningless.

[aerobique]

@MrOTLChamp

dude, the trends are UNDENIABLE CLEAR -

google: climate.nasa. gov/keyindicators

oh i forgot..nasa is not a credible source... the same guys that faked the moon landing, eh?

[MrOTLChamp]

@aerobique Did you refuse to answer the question? And by the way, with obama in office, that is really going to cut into the jobs for NASA. Seeing how obama is getting rid of our space program, if it weren't for the scare of GLOBAL WARMING, NASA would be out of a job. Do you really think NASA isn't going to try and keep the scare going?

[aerobique]

@MrOTLChamp

republican ideologist like you cant even make a difference between scienctific facts and political ideology, poor dude, very poor. And of course do i ignore your ridiculous distraction attempts. You are all the same, dangerously naive tools.

[MrOTLChamp]

@aerobique Dr. Christy..."Mother nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals(such as scientist) and the tools available to us"

I'll break it down for you in lame mans terms. Cont....



[MrOTLChamp]

@aerobique ...cont. That means the scientist don't really have a clue what they are talking about. And for some scientist to conclude Co2 is driving the temperatures is ridiculous considering they barely know anything about the main forces driving temps. How in the world can they even consider knowing enough about the least trace gas to say it's the culprit. You parrots crack me up.

[pseudotruth]

@MrOTLChamp

With every word you use, you show you are either a liar or are ignorant of the science. Which is it?

[MrOTLChamp]

@pseudotruth Neither, the temps have been faked. Proof of the corruption is everywhere you look.

HADLEYCRU, not only did the e-mails show an agenda, their satellite temps across Russia were bogus too. Russian scientist have proven that. The GISS temp sensors were installed on rooftops, near parking lots, and near AC units. The NOAA satellite sensors were reading temperatures 10-15deg higher than they were, and the scientist didn't know until a citizen brought it to their attention? LMAO

[pseudotruth]

@MrOTLChamp

You still don't understand. It's temperature anomaly, not temperature. BTW, please explain how UHI affects areas like the oceans?

[MrOTLChamp]

@pseudotruth I never said UHI affected the oceans. BTW, the oceans are not hotter either.

[MrOTLChamp]

@pseudotruth You failed to actually say anything worthy

[pseudotruth]

@MrOTLChamp

Well that was a non comment.

[MrOTLChamp]

@pseudotruth The peer reviewed process is extreemly flawed, scientist within the peer review process were keeping reports out of science journals if it didn't coincide with the religion they were pushing. You won't find that in a peer reviewed journal.  Explain how the scientist could miss their satellite sensors being off by 10-15deg and a citizen have to bring it to their attention? Are you going to ignore the stupidity of these scientist? They are either stupid or it's fraud.

[pseudotruth]

@MrOTLChamp

Have you any evidence to support you claims?

Evidence means peer-reviewed studies in relevant ISI WoS journals.

[pseudotruth]

@MrOTLChamp

You have been duped. Even Anthony Watts' own study showed he was wrong.

[pseudotruth]

@MrOTLChamp

'the temps have been faked.'

Tell that to the ice, the glaciers, the permafrost, the plants and the wildlife. Are they all in on the scam too?

[pseudotruth]

@MrOTLChamp

'Past history proves that, when Co2 levels were nearly 20x's higher and the earth did not continue to rise'

Nobody who's being honest and knows what they're talking about says CO2 is the only driver of climate. At times in the past when CO2 was much higher, other drivers were very different. The sun was much weaker, the land masses were differently located, plus numerous other things were also different. So your point was?

[DrDavemoore]

Bob Carter claims the IPCC provides no context and does not indicate that (1) climate change in geological time is explained by natural processes and (2) change in the last century or so is not.

Unfortunately the climate system is complex (green houses gasses, earth's location, angle etc relative to the sun etc etc). Thankfully the lines of evidence which underpins our understanding of the system are many. Who benefits from this type of "quasi-scientific" misleading propaganda?

[marktimmer2212]

we are the laughing stock of the galaxy.

aliens have given up their search for intelligent life on earth, and are currently leaving our system

[iantoau]

how is capitalism good for our ecology? anyone?

[gunthaarz]

Sound recording should be the main focus of most lecturers by now.. :) good lecture anyway, the sound isnt as bad as at some lectures.

[zebazian]

I like it how he dismisses the IPCC based on 12 years of data and then uses 8 years of data to support his own argument!!! Has he been peer reviewed for his work on climate science? NO. Has he been published in econimic journals? YES. Says it all really.

[ech1dna]

I don't know why I bother offering them links to read the actual science out there- they far prefer their own homespun fairytale versions (have you noticed how their alternate realities are all mutually exclusive? ).

We'd be better to follow Christopher Hitchens who wrote: "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.". Until they can provide actual evidence for anything they claim they deserve to be dumped straight in the loony bucket.

[ReduceGHGs]

bob carter is a corporate hack.

Who gives a rip what this guy thinks.

Our historically reliable scientific scientific institutions all concur that HUMANS are affecting the climate mainly by burning fossil fuels and clearling the land. There's no credible debate over this in the scientific community. The corporate interests try to spread disinformation to the contrary and keep paying fools (that have no study to back up what they say) like bob carter.

Google... NAS Global Warming

[celshad]

Correct. They even use faulty halfbaked information and feeding the media with this trash. One example: Showing a graph which clearly shows that temps leads co2 but not mentioning that these is common between two interglacials. a warming ocean will gas out more co2. but why don´t they show the graph of the last 200 years where you can clearly see that co2 leads t with no lag. this means that co2 right now drives temp.

[roargathor]

Bob Carter is not being paid by Oil companies to spread misinformation.

[ReduceGHGs]

Sorry, the evidence says otherwise.

As best I can tell his expertise in in marine geology and NOT in any of the climate science. Yet he presents himself like he's a qualified expert. He isn't. He also talks like he's completed some studies on climate. He hasn't.

Is he paid by corporate vested interests? Yes he is.

Here's a couple debunkings of carter.

Google...

Spot the recycled denial V Prof Bob Carter

Google...

Refuting claims that climate forecasts are all up in the air

[ech1dna]

Bobby Carter, Petroleum Geologist. The clue is in his job title...

You notice that he thinks making statements about warming based on a 100 year series is 'nonsensical' but then goes on to claim that the earth is cooling based on just 4 years of (unreferenced) data! Priceless! (the MET office HADcrut global temp records for the same period don't show cooling in that period by the way)

[AEiRobot]

It is not unusual for scientists to discuss new (unreferenced) data in conferences! It is the prelude to publication. A test-bed if you will.

If you stop and listen to what he is saying, it is that there is no correlation for increase or decrease in temperature with increase in carbon dioxide.

[ech1dna]

He has had many attempts at getting this stuff published in recent years- nothing has produced has made the grade to get into a real science journal yet so he publishes it in economics journals instead. Doesn't stop him peddling this powerpoint pisstake at any smalltown fair that will host him. If a science student at a good uni tried making a presentation like the one in this vid it would get a solid 'F'!

[AEiRobot]

You seem to have a beef with this guy. What happened, did he give you an 'F' in one of his classes, or did he get a job you wanted. Either way, he has published in reputable journals and yes, even Economics journals are reputable. But try this if you are still in doubt:

CARTER, R.M. 2005 A New Zealand climatic template back to c. 3.9 Ma: ODP Site 1119, Canterbury Bight, south-west Pacific Ocean, and its relationship to onland successions. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 35: 9-42.

[ech1dna]

Arobot- Its true, I do have a problem with these messianic bombastic powerpoint-jockeys and their pet ideas which fly in the face of the evidence.

"even Economics journals are reputable"- not when the subject is climatology they aren't!

The NZ paper you reference has very little to do with what Bob is raving about in this video.

Carter has a political axe to grind- that is the source of his attitude to climate change. He simply goes fishing for data which matches his bias. Bad science.

[ech1dna]

"A former CSIRO climate scientist, and now head of a new sustainability institute at Monash University, Graeme Pearman, said Professor Carter was not a credible source on climate change. "If he has any evidence that [global warming over the past 100 years] is a natural variability he should publish through the peer review process," Dr Pearman said. "That is what the rest of us have to do."

from Sydney Morning Herald article by Wendy Frew 15/3/07 titled 'Minchin denies climate change man-made'.

[AEiRobot]

And you believe the Morning Herald!

I'll stick with the science thanks - and there is plenty of that to support what Carter is saying.

Your problem seems to be a personal one ... I'll not argue with you over it.

[ech1dna]

That was to give you a idea of Bob Carter's standing in the Australian science community (ie.he doesn't have any). Incidentally, he does lots of work for the australian Institute of Public Affairs, a fossil fuel funded far-right lobby group. Look it up.

Sure, you can follow whatever daft guru you please. If you read science as you claim you'll have to work extremely hard to avoid seeing the vast array of evidence supporting the IPCC stance- Good luck keeping your faith.

[dwambo]

Almost as foolish as saying" the debate is over"like global warming alarmest do ad-nauseum!

[ech1dna]

Thats a pissweak comeback.

If a burnt-out charlatan like Bob Carter is the best you deniers came drum up then the phrase "the debate is over" begins to sound like an understatement.

Disagree? Cool- prove me wrong by posting references for the published science which backs you up. Anything else is just more internet denier dreamland bullshit.

[celshad]

yep. i have never seen a peer reviewed denier paper. they simply cherry pick the information who fits best their needs to manipulate the viewer. if this would be the way of science to back up facts - good night my dear.

[ReduceGHGs]

Yea, they're pretty bad. Just like big tobacco.

Google... The Denial Machine Video

Makes you wonder how the individuals that are pushing this disinformation feel about themselves. Its hard to imagine how they could think that a few dollars is more important. It takes all kinds and we certainly have all kinds.

[EdgardoJustice]

Nice work. keep it up. fghfg

[drogden]

Technically it's not, unless you have planted trees to make up for you c02 which i doubt.

[drogden]

Agreed. Also, a retard and indeed an uneducated moron would be one who doesn't understand a joke.

[AtomSmash3r]

Deniers like Bob seem to have a love affair with Satellite temp measurements

which actually don't measure surface temerature but atmospheric temperature.

We are worried about surface temperature. We don't live in the clouds, we live on the ground Bob!

But more ironically, the latest RSS MSU satellite data shows a distinct decadal warming trend which is even admitted on the RSS web site.

[drogden]

Clearly you are a retarded sheep. If you truly believe then stop breathing and help your cause.

[AtomSmash3r]

A retard and indeed an uneducated moron would be one who doesn't understand that breathing is carbon neutral.

[drogden]

It's not carbon neutral anyway jackass. You exhale more carbon than you inhale. Not only that but all the energy you are currently using. The only moral thing to do is kill yourself, clearly. You don't want this planet to turn into Venus do you?!

[AtomSmash3r]

Errr excuse me but carbon from breathing comes from carbohydrates, which comes from foods, which form those carbohydrates using photosynthesis and removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Oh dear oh dear, drogen is a complete butt headed moron! Ahahaha!

[juggernautxtr]

I would point out no one is against cleaning the environment. we are against a political scam that is about to ruin our economy for a pointless cause that will not do anything to help the global climate with carbon taxation. and that's what this is about a one world government that is out to destroy the sovereignty of human life. and tell me how taxes fix a problem? they don't they create more.

[AtomSmash3r]

Bob Carter is a con artist.

First he uses Satellite data which doesn't even measure surface temperature, and then says it's been cooling since 2002 (whether true or not it is statistically insignificant) and then compares it against the IPCC graph based on surface temp.

Hah!

You've been had, kids.

Wake up. Carter is a bought and paid for Industry shill.

[funcine]

If you truly believe in all the global warming hype then YOU are the one who has been had. So smile (but don't exhale) when you pay your CARBON TAXES.

There are many top scientists who concur with Bob Carter.

How is it you are so qualified as to make negative statements disqualifying his data? Are you a scientist? Did you trace it to the source?

I urge you to locate and watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and/or "Global Warming or Global Governance".

[AtomSmash3r]

"There are many top scientists who concur with Bob Carter."

Great, where can I find their articles refuting the Global Warming Con in the major peer reviewed scientific journals.

[drogden]

Wtf are you talking about? You don't get it obviously. Where do you expect to find his reports in the ipcc reports? Where tell me, in what particular article would make his truths more creditable?

[drogden]

AHAHAHA wow dumbest thing i've ever heard. Your accusations against this man are completely unfounded...Who do you think is going to pay for cap and trade idiot? We are, you and I. It's going to destroy the little guy (meaning small business) and big businesses product is going to be that much more valuable. Again you're a gullible sheep.

To them you are gold. Keep it up dipshit.

[pseudotruth]

@juggernautxtr

Evidence that a carbon tax would 'ruin our economy' please.

Evidence for 'one world government' please.

peer-reviewed studies only.

[juggernautxtr]

@pseudotruth a bankrupt government that spends it before it has it.

again another conformist that all is well and fine.

how much food have you got stored when shit hits the fan?

or are you gonna be the first in line with your hand out asking for a hand out cause your ass is to lazy to do anything but run your mouth.

[punarinta16]

I would point out that the issue of man-produced CO2 is not just about its relation to climate but lagerly about the rate of human use of finite energy resources. It is just

one indicator for something we have to deal with - called economic growth - watch

The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (a dubious name for a very true story). Be prepared to listen to some boring but nonetheless essential stuff

[juggernautxtr]

sorry but that is severely flawed. and all the realities are not listed. you prepared to save the planet and then the earth went into an ice age oops, you didn't store food? why? cause i spent all your money trying to save the planet from catastrophic global warming. oops global warming is real! where's all the food? i spent it trying to save the planet from catastrophic global warming and bankrupted everyone doing it. thats realities and it is happening now cause you guys screwed up.

[JanLauGe]

He is member of the "kiwi" institute, paid by exxon mobil.

Google them, do some research and do not let yourself be fooled by the tempting explanation that takes your responsibility for the environment away from you!

[trumpetuk111]

I just google 'kiwi institute' on google as you asked. there were NO results. NONE. ZERO. NADA. NUL.

Can you give me the proper name pls.

[JanLauGe]

Well, i found several thousands Oo

But try searching "kiwi sceptic" and take the first hit.

Thats the source I was refering to.

Oh, and be shure to google worldwide!?

[cstsb]

Let's see.. you saying he's being dishonest because there may or may not be a relationship with oil companies?

So, are you saying that we should trust scientists that only receive government funding?

According to "Kiwi Skeptic" Heartland has received $800,000 over the last ten years. $80,000 a year to research group is very small potatoes.

A check of "source watch shows that in 2005 Exxon contributions (S105,000) totaled .023% of the Heartland's Budget.

Not exactly scary....

[JanLauGe]

@cstsb

I just visited their homepage...

They actually do research for the tobacco industry.

This is so hillarious.

Their annual budget is, however 2.7 mio dollars. This makes the Exxon fundig 3% of their budget. Maybe thats because Malboro is paying so much more

;p

[gzornenplat]

Can you show that the statements he makes are untrue? It doesn't really matter where funding comes from if these are the facts. The problem with the AGW proponents is that they can't come up with any irrefutable facts (at least, none that I can find).

[JanLauGe]

"So, are you saying that we should trust scientists that only receive government funding?"

This is the same issue as institutes about lung cancer being paid by tabak industry. "Science" done for people with certain interests will often be influenced to benefit their position.

"The problem with the AGW proponents is that they can't come up with any irrefutable facts (at least, none that I can find)"

Well, rtfm! AR4 downloadable from w w w ipcc ch. It's all there!

[gzornenplat]

RTFM? There is no FM. AGW is not a product which has a user guide. No-one has time to read everything on the web. Why don't *you* tell me what proves the AGW case, or point me to one web page that summarises the proof of AGW. Not opinion, not climate models, not correlations, real facts and a logical progression from them to prove AGW. - see, we're back to what I said: proponents of AGW can't come up with any irrefutable facts.

[JanLauGe]

"...point me to one web page that summarises the proof of AGW"

That is exactly what I just did -.-

[chuckles1125]

And just remember this guy is a professor, not a railway engineer, like the head of the IPCC.

[JanLauGe]

@chuckles

Eh, you DID notice that he won the nobel price, did ya? But of course being a "Professor" includes much more comittmend than being the leading scientist in an international panel. Do you know what criteria there are to become a professor and what your duties are as such?

[chuckles1125]

Yes but people like your hero Al Gore receive money, lots of it too by convincing morons that this stuff is actually happening. Of course he will not say "it's all bullshit, but i made a few billion off it" and that's it he has made alot of money.

Irrespective you question trusting scientists who are funded by industry, however you would trust politicians, like those about to tax you on this, and ex politicians like Al Gore. Yeh smart plan, no politicians ever lie. Cough Cough

[JanLauGe]

And Al Gore is kind of a strange guy. I guess its to be taken to his credid that he is rising awareness about this issue, however he is not a scientist and is screwing up some of the facts. So I personaly do not take him that seriously.

[chuckles1125]

The facts are still facts, look at the chart which way is it pointing. Al gore owns are carbon credits company that he started up a few years before making his movie.

The plain and simple fact of this matter is that, people who claim to be scientists but use arguments like "it's past debate, there is a consensus" are simply trying to use words and not facts to convince you about climate change. Scientists, real scientists use facts, and make those facts readily available.

[grraadd]

Hot stuff - thanks Bushvision :-)