Al Gore, Comedian: Media's Global-Warming Coverage Too Balan

[Mrkreepy555]

how does he keep a straigh face?.... what an actor?! lol

[GreenRiver72]

Now that I've watched the video ... wow. I laud Dr. Christy for introducing new and better methods for analyzing the temperature data. Gore's denouncing of Dr. C's logical conclusion from the IR satellite dataset improvement (btw much better than global mean surface temp) is ignorant. There IS NO scientific consensus, the few that say this are peer-reviewing each other's work and looking for more grant money. Disgusting.

[pheil58]

Hey Green......wow i didnt realize my post was 11 months old !!!....lol....there is a livley thread on "climate change- is CO2 the cause?".......Bob Carter presents temperature data and asserts that what we have experiencd in this century is nothing out of the ordinary........he also says....if you don't like WARMING...try global COOLING!!!.....lol.....you won't like it!

[nwoebcke]

If you can understand a graph showing the undeniable link between CO2 levels and temperature, then you can believe in global warming. The 10 warmest years ON RECORD have happened in the past 15 years. What more do you need as proof? People who want to do nothing are just LIVING IN DENIAL.

[SonoftheRepublic1776]

All of your "graphs", even Gore's if you look closely, show CO2 going up only after the temp goes up. The IPCC is also fake. There was never a consensus or anything. Every scientist was only assigned one topic and one to two pages. Some poeple writing in it weren't even scientists! Now John Christy and about other scientists are suing the IPCC because they won't remove the pages they wrote. These scientists only agree with the part of the report that they wrote.

[abandoned08]

You're totally right! In fact, our global warming has gone so far as to heat up the sun millions of miles away!!! Don't believe me, look up the temperature of the sun. It's been going up due to all this global warming.

[GreenRiver72]

I you can't understand the Earth's temperature is dependent on the dozens of complex, multivariate, non-linear feedbacks that make up the climate system, then you can't make intelligent posts about the topic. The period of 'record' started as we were coming out of the mini ice age ~1870...which we are stil doing. Actually if you use a more accuate metric (IR sat) several years in the 1930s were just as warm. Earth has seen a cooling trend for the last 5-10 years. Scientific rebuttal welcomed.

[arkivx1]

Umm, DR. Christie said he left the IPCC because the satellite data showed that mann-made global warming is a myth. Algore is the liar why if "global warming" is such a problem is he such an energy hog?

[pheil58]

An outlier??...Gore is a geek....and this global warming thing is starting to freak me out.....he compares one of the most complex things you can think about in fact it hurts the brain...That's how infinitly complex the climate is...millions of variables......he compares it to the earth being round??....These people are scary.....it's not even science anymore...it's brainwashing....and so one sided with so much money {our money} thrown at ...you dont dare disagree if you work in that field.

[GreenRiver72]

Amen. As an atmospheric scientist currently active in research I am saddened and nauseated by friends and good professors I have seen lose grants by producing papers that clearly show this alarmism is fake.

[navyseal111]

as an additive, we didn't have such narrow areas of study as paleoclimatology [which people do spend a good 10 years on aquiring it's hefty degree] or satellites to monitor the earth. public concensus used to be that black people were animals meant for property. obviously this was seldom researched or refuted or denied in the general community; but with a little help from a few intellectual individuals we learned to grow away from that idealology and to believe the earth flat.

[navyseal111]

i have to ask this while i'm on, do you tend to avoid the weather channel or the stock market? because both require a giant amount of chance and probability when it comes to predicting the weather or guessing the prospecs of things, but you'll find both as successful divisions of employed society. NASA has poured billions into it's climate model research and you think your flustered irrational reaction makes the slightest dent in the scientific behemoth of truth and reason?

[navyseal111]

firstly,

yes. if history can tell us one thing about itself it's that it repeats itself ever so often. and when you're talking about a less subjective topic involving strict science and mathematic calculations, speculation ceases to exist, but what may be deduced from the newly aquired knowledgel i,e. how long do we have before our coastal areas are flooded and we're beyond the point of no return?

[kickahippie]

If the world was in real trouble from Global Warming - Then why the asymmetric approach to resolve it?

Why are we not also considering covering portions of our oceans? Why not regulate who boils water, how much water they boil, and when? Why not regulate how hot showers can get? Why not regulate jacuzzis?

[kickahippie]

Why not regulate how much livestock we have, what type and where? Why not regulate how much rice is produced and where?

[kickahippie]

Am I to believe that climate models, which can't replicate the past, are reliable means to establish acceptable ranges for the future?

[pheil58]

Kickahippie..Thanks for your post...Looks like im the first in 3 months....This thing is way out of control..but I think the tide is turning...and the ironic thing is Gores idiotic movie has really stirred the skeptics....he went so over the top in trying to sell the theory...that he ended up pissing people off...and one thing most of have in common is ....WE DON'T LIKE TO BE LIED TO...I'm out

[demdanglibruls]

@kickahippie Obviously that would be very unpopular, and the way US politics work, people would not vote for people who strictly regulated emissions. I'm not sure what covering portions of the oceans will do to help, but think about not being able to boil ramen... man, that would stink.

[kickahippie]

Scientific consensus used to be the world was flat.

- Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says - National Geographic News February 28, 2007

[RationalRat]

*Everyone* used to believe the world is flat, but that was during a pre-scientific age. When people started systematically studying the heavens, the evidence showed that it was a sphere, and the resistance wasn't from other scientists, but from the church.

I would also strongly recommend anyone that is interested google the article you mentioned. Because it will explain why his view is contradicted by the evidence.

[kickahippie]

But now since we know everything...

Scientific consensus is a term used to skirt what it really is - theory. Funding opportunities for theories are small, rare, and competitive compared to that of a consensus.

[libsrok]

Eminent Scientists Declare that We Are Burning Up the Available Supply of Oxygen So Fast that It Will Be All Gone Long Before Our Coal Supply Gives Out—Then the Air We Breathe Will Have to Be Manufactured. Prof. Rees' Statement. Coal and Oxygen Supply. Other Sources of Power. Growing Grain for Oxygen.

Lord Kelvin Pearson's Magazine, July 1900

[RationalRat]

Yeah, it's a good thing that we didn't stop doing science in 1900. I really don't get what people are trying to prove when they show that some scientist of the past was wrong about this or that. Is it meant to be just a broadside against all science in general?

[RationalRat]

Just a few of the prominent science organizations that agree with AGW:

National Academy of Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, American Chemical Society, American Association of Petroleum Geologists. There are *no* major national or international bodies of science who disagree.

[libsrok]

Why is climate changing?

Climate has changed throughout geological history, for many natural reasons such as changes in the sun's energy received by Earth arising from slow orbital changes, or changes in the sun's energy reaching Earth's surface due to volcanic eruptions. American Meterorological Society Feb 1 2007

[RationalRat]

Yes, but none of this explains why temperatures are rising now. Amazingly, people keep acting as if climatologists don't know about this stuff. They do. They've looked at the data and by far the biggest reason for our current warming are man-made produced greenhouse gases.

[daveatx]

"They've looked at the data and by far the biggest reason for our current warming are man-made produced greenhouse gases."

That's a great theory, but it is not a proven fact. Your climatologists are, however, experts in falling for the correllation=causation research mistake.

[RationalRat]

No, it's because CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps energy from the sun. It's more than just a correlation.

[daveatx]

Again, the appeal to authority...usually employed when the facts don't justify the conclusions. Thank God not all scientists fall into this logical fallacy trap...if they did, Wegener would still believe that continents don't move and we'd know far less about plate tectonics than we do now.

[RationalRat]

Ugh! No, the facts are out there for anyone who will take the time to investigate. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas; we know that human activities produce excessive CO2; we know that we observe a warming pattern with increased levels of CO2; and we know that solar forcing can't account for the temperature increases we see.

[daveatx]

Who has independently verified the qualifications of the members of these organizations?

[RationalRat]

Are you suggesting that *all* of the major scientific organizations are comprised of members without qualifications? If so, please do us all a service and show us some evidence. Good luck with that.

[RationalRat]

Gore makes an excellent point. When the consensus among scientists is as strong as it is, you don't make things "balanced" by focusing in on the small minority that don't agree.

[daveatx]

The problem for the global warming hysterics is that it isn't a small minority that don't agree...there are thousands and thousands of climatologists who disagree that the science is settled.

[RationalRat]

No, that's simply not true. Almost every major scientific organization, including the prestigious NAS and AAAS, has come out stating that Anthropogenic Global Warming is happening and warrants significant action now. The reason why there is a perception of significant disagreement is because news organizations will feature global warming deniers in order to appear "balanced". But among climatologists, there is a clear consensus.

[libsrok]

No, you are simply misinformed. There are 19,700 signors of the Oregon Petition (all qualified scientists)who agree there is no scientific evidence that AGW (greenhouse gases)cause climate change. I might add that the earth has cooled somewhat since 1998 yet co2 has increased.

[RationalRat]

The validity of the signatures on the Oregon Petition has not been independently verified. And of those that were valid, many of them have stated that they've changed their mind and would not sign it again.

And no one expects that global temperatures will rise ever year. But there is an undeniable warming trend. 2005 was warmer than 1998 and trend using 5 year averages have been consistently going up.

[daveatx]

"And of those that were valid, many of them have stated that they've changed their mind and would not sign it again."

Not true. 8 people...EIGHT...out of 19,000 have said they would not sign it again. And can I ask you to please point me to the independent verification that was conducted to ascertain the qualifications of the members of the AMS, NAS, AAAS, etc?

[RationalRat]

It was a random sampling of 30 of the 1400 PhDs listed. They could only identify 26 ; 11 said they would sign again; 6 wouldn't; 3 don't remember signing in the first place (!), 1 died, and 5 couldn't be contacted. So it's about 25% of them that wouldn't sign again. And of the other names, many were listed twice, some had fake degrees, fake names, etc. So there is a reason for not trusting the petition. There is no suspicion about the membership of AMS, NAS, AAAS, etc.

[daveatx]

"No, that's simply not true."

Actually, it IS true. The Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine started the Petition Project, which currently includes approx. 19,000 scientists (each signator must have at least one college degree in an Earth Science discipline)who disagree with the bandwagon theory of AGW. As I said, thousands and thousands of scientists disagree with you.

[daveatx]

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- "Four high school football players were treated at a hospital for hypothermia after participating in a game during rainy and cold weather."

More evidence of global warming!

NOT.

[ponyboy316]

You can not seek dissenting opinions as a substitute for scientific data. Opinions are irrelevant. Stick with the facts. This is the biggest problem with media. They think just because somebody believes something, that belief must be panderred to. This does the purpose of medai a huge injustice by going with a person's perspective rather than empirical evidence from people whose purpose it is to look at things in an unbiased way. That is why scepticism is a great trait for a scientist.