Al Gore Challenged by move producer, Phelim McAleer

[bodybuilderslave]

Thank God that, with the death of Breitbart, there is Phelim McAleer and others around to help keeping Breitbart's flame alive.

[Glasya666]

Only Fox would have a loser like McAleer on their show.

[BrianWheatley69]

Nothing has really changed in the past 2 years.

This man is a part of a global conspiracy to try to wrest national rights and hand them over to the IPCC or its successor. The movement has now changed the mantra from Global Warming, to Climate Change.

So now we have the ludicrous image of people campaigning to control the whole climate, as if they can stop climate changing. (pssss that's what climate does - every day!!!)

The gullibility of the masses makes it all possible.

[DoctorSess]

MANBEARPIG!

[splashlog01]

@DoctorSess

Don't joke about Manbearpig or "MBP" for short. It's the greatest threat to earth, I'm super duper ceral!

EXCELSIOR! 

[juscurious]

Al Gore- Evil and Cowardly. Won't stand and answer questions. Those are you in believe in this man are either evil or stupid.

[n5ifi]

In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of man made global cooling and the threat of an ice age, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity?

When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome?

Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct today than yesterday?

[IExposeMormonism]

maybe skydaddy algore will tell us what all these chemtrails are. He knows everything. Yet he never addresses an obvious issue smearing our sky.

[jonesgerard]

What do you think "tell the others to delete their emails" means.?

[cnoyes72]

Getting cut off by your "peers" is what happens when you ask an Inconvenient Question of Al Bore.

[getgene]

Polar bear populations are growing. THe IPCC says antarctica ice is growing. Gore did lose a lawsuit in Britain. 30,000 scientists have agree to sue him for fraud. Dr. Lindzen, MIT, has disproved the CO2 theory and found warming is not happening. Three data sets have been discovered as frauds. The fourth is Japanese whose scientists who say US data is like astrology. Greenland was green 500 years ago. Here is a final fact: Al Gore and Goldman Sachs are major in the Chicago carbon exchange

[wreckdiver001]

Al Gore is a lawyer. How do you tell when a lawyer is lying? When it's lips move.

[sydneymassive]

Heaven forbid you question the "Messiah".

[dtz1000]

HAHA Fox News. He just lost all credibility.

[dtz1000]

HAHA Fox News. The guy just lost all credibility.

[Lovegear]

well.. it most probably was

[Glasya666]

Only Fox would give attention to an idiot like Phelim. What a joke.

[mrzl13]

lol, i saw this exact same comment from you on another video.

you people don't help yourselves :)

[SuperGuitarman69]

I live in Nashville fairly close to the Idiot Al Gore. The British are leading the way to debunk this crap? Thank you are valued friends. I just hope /americans will follow your lead and stop nwo in it's tracks. Not to worry. O'bama is gone after 1 term and we'll have a conservative in there that'll crap in a box and send it to Copenhagen

[crustyshirt]

Logic...

[IconicFiber]

@leenooi31 STRAW MAN!

[FreelancePatriot76]

God forbid the sun has anything to do with heating the earth.

Shit snow just piled a foot today and we in PA were at the tail end of the storm, aka snowmageddon.

[crustyshirt]

@FreelancePatriot76 , if its snowing global warming climbate change, if its a nice sunny day its global warming climate change, wind, dust, smog, rain, hail, partly cloudy, thunder, eclipse...its global warming climate change. When the populous talk to one another, we know it as weather... haha ; )

[FreelancePatriot76]

Are you serial !

[FreelancePatriot76]

You don't think the copenhagen treaty is really about addressing global warming did you?

You read that just like you read HR3200, right?

libtards.

[WizardPaul]

So even though all the exposures on how currupt the IPCC are and have conspired to hide data, manipulate data and lie for their own good means nothing to you? AGW is a crock of BS!

You use a straw man argument to try and bring this down. You are a flog-bag!

[beggarz]

It's a scam, no question anymore.

[Everincon]

al gore was the guy in the wheel chair in avatar

[MrOllyK]

I'm all for cleaning up our act, but the AGW camp have gone too far and blamed ONE gas, a minor and crucially beneficial one, as the bad guy.

Farmers pump extra CO2 into their greenhouses to max plant growth.

The Triassic and Jurassic had some 20x the CO2 we have today, WITH NO RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE! Life clearly thrived.

The CO2 from fossil fuel we're burning now was already in the atmosphere, with no ill effect.

It's real pollution we need to keep in check, SO2, NO and particulates.

[MihaZ]

And I suggest you read the actual science journals.

[CelticKraut]

actually al gore is evil.

[Glasya666]

Why the hell would I watch that? I don't care what Al Gore or Greenpeace has to say about anything. I get my information from actual scientists. As to the arctic ice melting, do you think the NOAA was exaggerating when they said (in 2007) the arctic was melting faster than expected?

[cirrusbill]

Even though you all are correct to point out the global warming scam/hoax ... look at yourselves in how many of you actually ACCEPT the premise that the earth is warming, despite the evidence pointing to the phony science and statistics that generated this "fact."

In many places, and in fact for the past half decade or so, much evidence shows that the earth is cooling.

[biarritz59]

GREEN MOVEMENT WILL RUIN SOCIETY

[seonf]

man made global warming is a scam- wake up people.

p.s I'm anti Bush

[planetfall]

When your position can only be defended by eradicating dissent, you are right to suspect you're on the wrong track.

[opaz79]

the debate is over, al gore is not interested in saving the planet, its all a hoax

[excatholics]

Its all politics, but good question nonetheless.

[WeAreDevo456]

Ecologically friendly fascism?

[AnotherAlexChannel]

AL WHORE

[teerexness]

The king of the climate data analyzing centers (CRU) has just been caught, red handed, skewing the data to artificially make a case for climate change. Hearings are to be held in the U.S. House of Representatives, criminal charges are being seriously considered by lawyers all of the world. Just type "climategate" into any search engine. This is a globalists agenda, not science. Copenhagen is to sign a deal with the devil (devil = global bankers). Please shut off the TV and think.

[Rawego]

why doesn't someone just hang Gore by the balls for this? oh, he hasn't any i see...ok, next question!

[jonbar87]

good question!!!

[kirkslastbid]

To anger a conservative, tell him a lie.

To anger a liberal, tell him the truth !!!

[kirkslastbid]

God, help this world when a man such as Gore is held up as a leader, award winner, or really just someone to listen to !!!

[georgegereige]

this is a super-edited version. if it was a torrent, i would b a fake!! it show the reporters question, then jumps like 4 mins ahead in the conversation. y's everybody gotta hate?

[Glasya666]

Second, what does Al Gore or some judge have to do with anything? You claim that "my ideas can't stand up in a court of law". Get a fucking clue. Global warming is not Al Gore's theory. He is just a self appointed messenger.

What I am saying is that you should ignore him, the idiot questioning him in this interview, all the idiots on the news, and listen to the scientists actually doing the research.

[MrBlackBrit]

GAY666- you're an idiot and a twat. Only a clown would believe like you; blindly following a fool. And that's exactly what you're doing. Scientists are not saying global warming is the cause of humans. There is NO connection. But Al Gore says there is... and you agree. FOOL!

[Glasya666]

>> "Scientists are not saying global warming is the cause of humans."

That much is true. Humans are not the result of global warming.

[Glasya666]

So some idiot "dares" to ask Gore a "tough question," whines about censorship, and Faux News is all over it. Here is an idea: Why don't you global warming deniers try to debate the actual scientists? Probably because you would lose. Polar bears are endangered. They are losing their habitat. Anybody who does even a tiny amount of research is well aware of that.

[opiniontimes]

You global cooling deniers will never change. Debate scientists? How about the debate in the courtroom which prompted the decision by a British judge that there were nine major errors in Inconvenient Truth? Your ideas can't even stand up in a court of law! And you tell me about polar bears? How did the polar bears survive in the Medieval Warm Period when the northern ice must have greatly receded when productive farming was present in Greenland?

[Glasya666]

First, nine major errors? I saw the judge's list. What a joke. Just a couple examples:

"Gore said that the ocean conveyor belt is shutting down. In reality it's just slowing down."

"Al Gore said that coral reefs were being bleached because of global warming. That's actually true, but there could be other factors as well."

There are the kind of "major" errors.

[Glasya666]

As for the medieval Warm Period, it was warmer in the north atlantic region. No evidence that it was global. I don't see any reason why the polar bears wouldn't survive that.

[Brantoc]

@opiniontimes Many try, no one in the AGW crowd will debate.. Here is one of the rare ones that did happen.

watch?v=F6t2D74UcrY

That is a true debate. 9 parts. I2 has done two, the second the AGW people refused to debate global warming so they debated CO2. Got smoked both times. I suggest buying the DVDs.

[dbahardstyle]

the majority of elite scientist will say the earths climate has always went through a cycle, for the past 6000 years.

[jonbar87]

No, your wrong. And stupid. Just stop, please

[Glasya666]

The science academies of the following countries all agree that global warming is real, and we are contributing to it: US, France, Germany, China, Russia, United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, Canada, Brazil, India, Mexio, and South Africa.

Also, the NOAA, the American Meteoroligical Society, the Royal Society of New Zealand, the American Geophysical Union, etc. I could go on, but I'm nearing the charater limit.

The denier's response: Al Gore is a hypocrite.

[Essanach]

@Glasya666 Global warming is real, in fact our entire solar system is warming and clearly we aren't responsible for that. The climate hysteria is being used to further agendas which really have nothing to do with global warming.

[Glasya666]

Where do you get the idea that the entire solar system is warming? Yea, I know the ice caps on Mars are melting. Do you know why? Hint: It isn't because the sun is warming.

[Essanach]

@Glasya666 It's fairly easy to Google this information. The entire solar system is displaying warming. It's true that most scientists support the man-made global warming theory, but scientists are herd creatures who 'follow the leader' as much as any other group, so that doesn't mean this theory is correct. No doubt mankind's activity contribute but the idea that it is the 'cause' is flawed and premature IMO. It's is a convenient idea to some because it feeds into agendas they already have.

[Glasya666]

Yes, it is easy to google information. That's the problem. There are people who actually do this for a living. Then people like you look up a couple things on the internet and think you know more than they do. You don't.

[Essanach]

@Glasya666 That's an appeal to authority. I should just believe 'them' because you feel 'people like' me (you know nothing about me) are not equipped to make up their own minds based on their own research. Fair enough. I disagree. But I see this isn't a 'discussion' for you but more of a point scoring exercise. I'm not here for that. However, anyone else who may be reading and is open minded might want to examine the issue of the warming of the solar system in relation to earth climate change.

[Glasya666]

Google: Stanford sun global warming.

From the Stanford Solar Center:

"Some uncertainity remains about the role of natural variations in causing climate change. Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks only a quarter of the recent variation can be attributed to the sun. At most."

There are two factors that are causing Mars to warm. Variations in its orbit, and dust storms which darken the surface causing it to absorb more energy.

[Essanach]

@Glasya666 Yes, but one can find scientists who say very different things. And there is disagreement about whether the sun's influence is 'minor or' not. It's not categorically proven either way. And this warming phenomenon also includes, but is not limited to, Mars, Pluto, Jupiter, Triton and of course Earth. This is what has been observed so far. We need to keep an open mind, IMO.

[Glasya666]

Yea, you can always find scientists who say very different things. You can find astronomers that don't believe in the big bang. It doesn't mean too much.

There is no evidence that changes in the suns luminosity is causing warming on any of those planets or moons. I already explained Mars. Jupiter isn't affected too much by the sun, most of its enery is internal. Pluto has a very irregular orbit that gives it more extreme changes. Tritons warming has also been explained (its seasonal).

[Essanach]

@Glasya666 Actually a minority disagreeing with the consensus is often how great breakthroughs in science come about, so it could well 'mean much'. What I see you saying here is that solar system warming can be explained away by various 'natural' means - except somehow when it comes to the earth. Surely, according to Occam's Razor one cause for solar system warming is more reasonable than over half a dozen different ones? Look for youtube video: "ClimateGate The Hockey Stick vs. Ice Core Data"

[Glasya666]

To your first point, I never denied the possability that AGW is wrong. I just wouldn't bet on it.

Second, you have offered no evidence that the solar system is warming. Some of the planets are warming, and a couple (out of several dozen) moons.

Finally, Occam's Razor has nothing to do with this. You have to look at each case individually. The warming on Mars in well understood. The fact that Jupiter is warming too has nothing to do with it. Same for the rest of the planets or moons.

[Essanach]

@Glasya666 I think you're greatly overstating our understanding of the solar system & what may be causing warming. Belief and theory are not fact, not matter how widely held. You seen to keep trying to suggest a 'case closed' scenario, in which 'we know'. I'm suggesting we don't know for sure & that an open mind is necessary. Occam's Razor does apply and it supports the idea of a single 'cause', unless there is definitive proof to the contrary. There isn't. What about the video I mentioned?

[Glasya666]

I don't think you understand what Occam's Razor is. First off, I dispute the idea that the solar system is warming. But let't ignore that. Simply stating that it is because the sun is getting brighter is not a theory. Is is just a hypothesis. You would have to do a lot of work to establish the theory. Do you have any published papers that support your claim?

What you are trying to do is use Occam's Razor to turn an idea into a fact. It just doesn't work that way.

[Essanach]

@Glasya666 @Glasya666 I don't recall saying the sun is getting brighter or this was the cause. You assumed that. It may well be, but there are other potential causes for solar system warming. (Google "interstellar dust cloud +solar system warming") And no, I'm not trying to turn an idea into a fact - that seems to be your position. As I've repeatedly said, my point is that we don't know for sure & need to keep an open mind rather than simply insisting: "it's AGW. Case closed."

[Glasya666]

There are over 150 planets and moons in our solar system. You point out that 5 or 6 of these objects are warming as evidence that the entire solar system is warming.

There are dozens of scientific organizations and thousands of prominent scientist, including Nobel Prize winners, supporting AGW. How is it that you can ignore all that, and then cling to ANY theory that disputes it? What evidence do you have for your "dust cloud" theory?

[Essanach]

@Glasya666 Your comment: "There are over 150 planets and moons in our solar system" is quite misleading. There are 8 planets and most of them display warming. I suggested you Google the evidence for an interstellar dust cloud. The evidence is there for those who are willing to do the work rather than simply falling back on faith in the impressive trinkets and baubles of authority figures they trust to do their thinking for them. Consensus is always overturned eventually as knowledge advances.

[Glasya666]

Earth, Mars, and Jupiter are warming. So what? Uranus is cooling. How does that fit into your theory? Bringing moons into it is just ridiculous. There are hundreds of them. You point out 1 or 2 that are warming. What is that supposed to prove? Why even bring them up? You are obviously trying to force the evidence to fit your theory.

As far as the global dust theory, I'm not going to google it. If you have a peer reviewed article I'll consider it.

[Essanach]

@Glasya666 "How does that fit into your theory". How does the Antarctic & other parts of earth cooling fit into yours? (& many other contradictory anomalies to the AGW scenario) The answer is that cooling or warming is not uniform but involves many factors & variation can be seen both on earth and in the entire solar system. Observing overall trends & cycles is important. Google "ESA sees stardust storms heading for Solar System" & "Is the solar system entering a nearby interstellar cloud"

[Glasya666]

Antarctica is not cooling, so it fits into my theory just fine.

Fine. I looked at a couple of webpages on interstellar dust, including the ones you quoted. I saw absolutely nothing in there that suggests that interstellar dust has anything to do with the warming of the solar system (which hasn't even been established).

I did see a lot of blogs that link these articles and try to tie them to the warming solar system theory. The articles do not support that at all.

[Essanach]

@Glasya666 Sigh. You have a closed mind. You are antagonistic to theories contradictory of AGW and so you're unwilling to do the work to piece together & comprehend the evidence for alternative perspectives & expect others to fight your prejudice every step & require them to force feed you the evidence which supports them & to make the connections you are quite capable of making yourself (ie stellar dusts relationship to warming) if you were as interested in the truth as in defending orthodoxy.

[Essanach]

@Glasya666 'Antarctica is not cooling' LOL. It's gaining sea ice overall, spin that how you will. Even defenders of AGW admit it has recently cooled. "Antarctic cooling appears, from the limited data available, to be restricted only to the last two decades, and that averaged over the last 40 years, there has been a slight warming At present, it is not possible to say what the long term change over the entire last century or more has been." - RealClimate. "Antarctic cooling, global warming?"

[Essanach]

@Glasya666 To restate, I don't have a fixed belief. I find a great deal wrong with the AGW theory - a great deal. My general OPINION based on the available evidence is that man's contribution is minimal and that the prime causes (not 'cause') of warming are natural and cyclical and that consequently we simply do not have the power to cause of reverse this warming. I also know there are other agendas to pushing the AGW myth, which is a cover story. Google global warming and the climate . com.

[Glasya666]

>> "What about the video I mentioned?"

What about it?

[Essanach]

What about it? Are you serious? I'm asking you to address the evidence the video presents. It's pretty damning both to the notion of AGW and to the idea that this present period is anything special in earth's history with regard to rate or degree of climate change.

[Glasya666]

What evidence does the video present? The planet was warmer in the past? Who cares. We already knew that.

[Essanach]

@Glasya666 Don't you see the import? There were much steeper rates of increase in warming on earth, many, many times in the past & the degree of warming was also much greater. All of this happened repeatedly with no AGW. So there is no reason to conclude that this present relatively unremarkable change in climate is anything other than natural. And aren't you interested to know what caused past cycles of warming, seeing as it was not AGW, as is probably what accounts for any present warming too?

[trbbb]

glasya presents the opinion of experts a hell of a lot more knowledgeable and respected than you, jonbar. and all you say is "No your wrong.And stupid.Just stop,please". absolutely pathetic...i feel embarrassed for you

[jonbar87]

is that why they just found out that there has been tampering with the "evidence of the global warming data" and are now investigating. LOL. typical uninformed liberal. get your facts straight, THEN post. until then, stfu, because your the one making a fool out of yourself.

[jonbar87]

excuse me, "your're" is what I meant.

[trbbb]

HAHAHA BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING I'M A LIBERAL? there's no proof in tampering as those emails' authenticity is impossible to discern (meaning they may have been changed before being released). of course that's all your side has to go on... not decades of research.

i still find you hard to believe "typical uninformed liberal" lol. if i'm a liberal then you must be a redneck, so stay out of science which you obviously know nothing about and get back to masturbating into your gun ;)

[willow2947]

jonbar87; is that statement meant for gore? if so

right on!

[jonbar87]

well it wasn't, but it could go for him as well!!

[estupidospor]

@Glasya666 hi sheep!, the amount of polar bears has raised 5 times since 50 years ago. wake up. good bye

[Glasya666]

@estupidospor

No shit moron. Polar bears were almost eliminated by hunting by the 50's. Then they passed laws to reduce hunting. The numbers went up. Now they are facing a separate danger, the loss of habitat.

[ImprettysureImright]

@Glasya666 The co2 present in our atmosphere makes up about .054% of the atmospheric gasses. Of that .054%, humans are responsible for 3-5%, the rest is naturally occurring. The entire AGW debate hinders on whether or not the 3-5% we contribute is enough to block the suns energy from bouncing off our planet and back into space. The simple fact is, that there is absolutely no scientific evidence stating our admissions are capable of doing such. In my opinion, AGW is a taxation seeking fraud.

[Glasya666]

@ImprettysureImright

Humans are responsible for about 33% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. That you don't even know this basic fact proves that your understanding of the science behind global warming is seriously lacking.

[ImprettysureImright]

@Glasya666 33%? That is an outright lie unless you actually believe it. Than it is just ignorance on your part. We are responsible for around .28% (notice the decimal, it is of utmost significance) of the .054% of carbon in the atmosphere. I would say your science is not lacking, it is just wrong.

[Glasya666]

@ImprettysureImright

Our contribution to CO2 emissions is rather small. Our contribution to the concentration in the atmosphere is very significant (about 33%). I'll explain in detail if you want, but it's kind of hard with the 500 character limit. Try reading up on the carbon cycle.

[ImprettysureImright]

@Glasya666 Well I would appreciate it if you could explain in a PM considering what you have written sounds to me to be contradictory. If our contribution to the total emissions of co2 is "rather small" than how can our contribution to the co2 in the atmosphere be "very significant?" I would think that the total co2 emissions and the concentration within the atmosphere are one in the same. So how can our contribution be small in one area, and large in another?

[Glasya666]

There are a lot of natural sources that put CO2 into the atmosphere. There are also a lot of sinks that take CO2 out of the atmosphere. These two are basically equal, which is why CO2 levels remain relatively constant. The point is that the earth can only absorb so much carbon in a given time. The extra C02 we emit builds up. Even if it's just a little bit each year the concentrations will continue to rise.

[Glasya666]

Simple analogy: You have a sink that is half full of water. You turn on the faucet and open the drain at the same time. If the water drains out as fast as it comes in the water level will not change. Increase the water flow into the sink 3%. If you don't adjust the drain the water level will rise.

You can leave the faucet running for years. Think of all the water pouring into the sink without any effect on the water level. That small change can cause the sink to fill up real quick.

[Glasya666]

Just to put some numbers on things. There are about 720 billion tons (720 GT) of CO2 in the atmosphere. Every year natural sources add about 790 GT of CO2. If we removed all the CO2, it would only take about a year to put it back. Our contribution is about 29 GT. At that rate it would only take a couple decades to increase the CO2 concentration by 33%, assuming none of the 'extra' CO2 was absorbed. The earth does absorb a lot of our emissions, but not all of it.

[ImprettysureImright]

@Glasya666 I have an idea. Let's blow a few big ass holes in the Ozone and let if float out into space:D That should work, right?

[ImprettysureImright]

@Glasya666 Where is the evidence that the co2 we are emitting is the direct cause for the abundance in the atmosphere? Why not volcanoes, or marshes&lakes, why not the millions of other species on Earth? Or is it simply because we are the only ones with the power to change it ;)? Thank you for the "simply analogy" but it was quite unnecessary. Still though, it was a fantastic analogy, I'll admit. I recommend using it in future discussions.

[Glasya666]

Well, the CO2 did increase sharply when we started burning fossil fuels. That needs an explanation. For more direct evidence you can look at isotope ratios. Most carbon has an atomic mass of 12. Cosmic rays striking the upper atmosphere can turn some of this carbon 12 into carbon 14. Plants breathe in this C14 and we eat the plants. So all living organic matter has some C14. When you die you stop breathing in C14 and it will eventually decay back into C12.

[Glasya666]

Fossil fuels like coal and oil have been 'dead' for millions of years. All the carbon 14 is gone. So the fossil fuels we are burning are releasing C12. Decaying organic matter releases a mixture of C12 and C14. If we are releasing a significant amount of carbon we should expect the ration of C12/C14 to change slightly. This has been observed by looking at tree rings.

[MissingGWdotcom]

Funny Al Gore does not bother to show us what the GISP ice core sample shows beyond 1000 years, maybe because it shows the temp in N hemisphere was 1 degree higher 1000 years ago, 2 degree higher 2000 years ago and 3 degrees Celsius 3300 years ago according to the GISP ice core data. Not to mention the other 100s of other sudden temp changes the last 10,000 years up to 3 degrees Celsius! After 10,000 years the earth moves back to a elliptical orbit and the temp drops 9 degrees C.

[MissingGWdotcom]

Believing in man made global warming is just that a belief. There is no direct proof a 100 ppm or even a 1000s ppm increase in CO2 has anything more than a minor effect. Note temperature has always changed as GISP ice core shows 1 degree higher 1000 years ago, 2 degree higher 2000 years ago and 3 degrees Celsius 3300 years ago. Not to mention the other 100s of other sudden temp changes the last 10,000 years up to 3 degrees Celsius! Al Gore stops at 800 years because he cannot explain this

[MissingGWdotcom]

There is no direct proof an increase of 100 ppm in CO2 has any effect on temp. Fact is an increase of 100 ppm CO2 has a no effect on temperature in the lab, none! You need to increase CO2 to about 200,000 ppm to see a 3 degree C change. Global warming nuts then say, well the lab is not fair because CO2 is 50,000 feet of atmosphere. So there are some theories based on an idea of layers in 50,000 feet that tries to prove a 100ppm increase in CO2 increase temperature a few tenths of one degree F.

[MissingGWdotcom]

This is an insignificant increase much less proof of man made global warming so the global warming nuts say well CO2 has an amplifying effect and then they rely on flawed global warming models which are grossly positive lookback biased so of course they are going to show an amplifying effect from a small amount of CO2 as they are built to do this but note flawed models are not proof much less science.

[DS1circle]

Al Gore is a lying theif. He is making millions from the fake global warming crap. It's all a LIE!!! In December, Obama goes to Copenhagen to sign the Climate Control Treaty, which virtually hands our sovereignty over to the NWO.

LIES AND DECEPTION. Can Al Gore explain why we had the coldest summer on record in decades? Can he back up global warming when they had record snowfall in Pennsylvania...IN OCTOBER??? LIAR-LIAR-LIAR!!!

SCUMBAG LIAR AL GORE.

[FromDimmuLand]

AL GORE is a LIAR --- a THIEF .

Scumbag Dishonest lying biatch !!

[arkor7]

al gore is a dumb idiot

[arkor7]

al gore is an idiot and a liar

[jjolin763]

A convenient LAIR - Al Gore, when will Gore, and Obama drive a Toyota Prius?  Why won't they STOP flying all over the world? Why won't they LEAD BY EXAMPLE? Oh, that's right, they ARE, leading by example. We need to do what they do, NOT what they say... that's the key..

[chezypuuf]

Can someone help explain to me how global warming is causing it to SNOW here in CT? It's Oct 15th, and there is an inch of snow on the ground.

[vballfanatic17]

It makes for more extremes in temperatures. So thanks for pointing out that in fact global warming is happening in your area.

[fusedchromosome]

@chezypuuf

Global warming can produce more snow (in some areas) because warmer air holds more water. So a warm front moving over water will pick up more and then when it crashes into a cold front, you end up with more rain or snow. This is very basic atmospheric science and yet McAleer, Beck, Hannity and their ilk are vomiting up their stupidity to their fans who can't be bothered to actually learn anything.

[chezypuuf]

@fusedchromosome That makes complete sense as long as we entirely ignore local temperature trends. My point wasn't focusing on the amount, but rather the fact that it was cold enough to snow at all. Oct. is 50's/60's weather on average. Not 30's, and below. In the 1970's the fear mongering left was claiming we were heading for an ice age. Now the left wing fear mongers are saying if we don't act the way they want us too that the earth win turn into a fiery ball of hellish fury. /facepalm

[fusedchromosome]

@chezypuuf

Part 1)

You can't simply use the local temperature trend for a handful of locations and deduce anything. Parts of Asia are experiencing record high temperatures, but that doesn't necessarily prove global warming either.

As for the comment "...that the earth will turn into a fiery ball of hellish fury,"

I'm not sure whether to take that as hyperbolic humor or a serious comment, since a lot of deniers like Beck and Hannity and Coleman actually do talk like that.

[fusedchromosome]

@chezypuuf

Part 2)

I've been trying to research both sides of this argument for months now and I'm still not sure who has a stronger case, but one thing for sure is that there is a ton of misinformation being injected into the debate by idiots like McAleer that is frankly useless for determining fact from fantasy. The snowstorm argument is among the more popular and the fact that he uses it destroys his credibility.

[chezypuuf]

@fusedchromosome Yeah... That was just an off the cuff comment i made over a year ago remarking on the fact that it was freezing out. It's hard to take global warming serious when you have snow in Oct in CT. Since global warming would imply warming, and not cooling. Also could you people stop referencing Glenn Beck for a change. Who is forcing you to watch that dudes show anyway? You wanna talk about wacky zealots go listen to Al Gores dramatic Poem about global warming, and kindling.

[fusedchromosome]

@chezypuuf

I don't put much stock in Gore either. I'm not convinced that he didn't see a gravy train going by and jumped on it. There's always opportunists on both sides trying to make a buck off of any controversy. The "global warming" got changed to "climate change" because too many people were interpreting it to mean the temperature was going up everywhere when it's just the average temperature. Some places rise, some actually drop.

[jonesgerard]

@fusedchromosome ' "global warming" got changed to "climate change" because too many people were interpreting it to mean the temperature was going up everywhere when it's just the average temperature. "

No they got trapped in their own scam red handed. The emails prove they knew temps weren't increasing and they were covering it up.

Its all done.

[fusedchromosome]

@jonesgerard

Show me which emails actually back up your claim and aren't being twisted into saying something they weren't intended to say.

[fusedchromosome]

@jonesgerard

What do YOU think "hide the decline means?"



[fusedchromosome]

@chezypuuf

"Who is forcing you to watch that dudes show anyway?"

I have no choice but to watch in order to see what he's propagating. Most of the arguments I hear from friends and neighbors come from him and his band of misinformation salesmen. The people who blindly follow him et.al. are no better than the Gore groupies. His flavor of crap also needs to be exposed otherwise it just goes viral and the people who buy into it aren't going to bother checking any more than the Gore groupies.

[fusedchromosome]

Part 3)

You can also read up on hurricanes in the South Atlantic. You think snow in October is unusual, try a hurricane where people aren't used to seeing them.

[chezypuuf]

@fusedchromosome There's a lot of reasons for extreme weather. Last I saw the amount of carbon released by humans was so small that even if we completely stopped contributing it would account for about .075% of 1 degree. I'm just not sold on global warming. It sounds like just another scare tactic to get us to give up some liberty's. Seems like all the things that will save mother earth also include us sacrificing some freedom for that sense that everything will be safe.

[fusedchromosome]

@chezypuuf

You might find this interesting.

watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA

[captainsailorband]

Where is the part where Gore responds?

[noteviljustwrong]

Thanks for making this video

[DwightSimpson]

That's just like Al Gore. Why address dissent when you can just turn off the questionaire's microphone. Gore stands to make billions if he scares everybody to death and manages to get the required "cap and trade" legislation passed. It's apparent, he can't justify his position or he would answer the questions. Ramming it down our throats is not only un-American, but it will destroy the middle class--huge energy cost increases for all businesses and families. GORE WAS ASKED A FAIR QUESTION!!

[terraalert]

This movie isn't evil, it's just wrong.

The epic climate change debate goes on every day on greenman3610's channel.