Al Gore Gets A Nobel?

Well ain't that a ....
Gore gets a Nobel for a movie that misrepresents scientific data about the Earth's "global" temperatures?

Is he going to have to return the Nobel when "global warming" fears turn out to be wrong?

Comments

[Duane]

It's not what you know....

[MIB]

Did either of you actually watch An Inconvenient Truth to understand the issue?

What data was misrepresented in the film?
How?

[Duane]

Did either of you actually watch An Inconvenient Truth to understand the issue?

Me? Nope.

Typically I learn about an issue by listening to folks who are more versed in it than I. Al Gore is not a scientist. He is a politician who cut and pasted the issue as he saw fit while ignoring opportunities to openly debate his p.o.v with folks who disagree with him. Also, he has been called out more than once for violating the very doctrine he preaches about how we as humans need to conserve energy. Sorry, but did not need to see the film for that. One does not need to see An Inconvenient Truth to fully understand the issue of global warming--unless of course you are fine with a one-side argument.

Now if you want to debate on the issue of global warming itself, let's go!

[DarkStar]

In order to believe that global warming is warming that is not natural for the cyclic nature of global weather, you first have to establish a baseline range of temperatures that are agreed upon to be "normal."

There is no such agreement nor is there no such global temperature range given, anywhere. Most of the "warming trend numbers" are based on the warming period after the last mini-ice age.

In fact, there are studies that show "warming" has not happened in almost a decade.

And lets not forget we are in a period of increased sunspot activity, which affects weather.

[MIB]

I should have known Duane would comment on something he hasn't researched at length. But you, Ed...

Global warming theory certainly does explain a degree of warming being natural and cyclic. In fact, Truth presents this data; I don't recall off the top of my head what historically has been the normative range for climate change.

The data presented in Truth covered several Ice Age periods.
Plus, the ten hottest years ever recorded since records have been kept (1880) have occured since the early 1990's. There was additional data displayed in Truth; much of it peer-reviewed -- unlike the disinformation spread by films including The Great Global Warming Swindle.

[brotherbrown]

Darkstar, if what you are saying is correct, we won't know if he was correct or incorrect for another thousand years.

What do you make of the loss of glaciers, which is supposedly demonstrable?

[Duane]

I should have known Duane would comment on something he hasn't researched at length.

What I said:

"One does not need to see An Inconvenient Truth to fully understand the issue of global warming--unless of course you are fine with a one-side argument."

also...

Now if you want to debate on the issue of global warming itself, let's go!

Al Gore said that the debate over global warming is over, yet there has been more and more scientists who have come out of the closet to publically disagree with the prophet. Recently about 500 scientists issued a peer-reviewed analysis of MAN-MADE global warming and concluded that Gore had it wrong.

Since when did An Inconvenient Truth become the prerequisite for understanding global warming?

Your response is living proof and yet another example of the G.W. crowd:

If you don't subscribe to the theory of MAN-MADE global warming, well...you have not done your research.

Been there, done that with others on the issue.

Very weak!

BTW: Did you decide on getting another VW, or did you go with the Prius?

[MIB]

Perhaps you have difficulty discerning between theory, a hypothesis, and fact, Duane. Global warming is a theory. Truth presented a lot of scientific evidence in support of the theory the Earth's temperature is heating beyond the historic range of climatic highs and lows (mainly) due to a marked increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the beginnings of the Industrial Age. I've read where various scientists have stated Truth may have exaggerated some of the results of global warming, e.g.; sea levels, but that the core thesis is correct.

Al Gore doesn't present himself as a scientist. He only identifies himself as someone concerned with environmental issues. He did not make an appeal to authority with Truth; neither did he (or anyone else, to my knowledge) argue a person 'had' to see the documentary to understand the issues.

Earlier, I asked whether you or Ed had actually seen Truth before criticizing its message. Since you've both answered 'no', the logical conclusion a level-headed reader could come to is neither of you are reliable sources on the movie, and perhaps the subjects of global warming and/or Al Gore.

"... yet there has been more and more scientists who have come out of the closet to publically disagree with the prophet. Recently about 500 scientists issued a peer-reviewed analysis of MAN-MADE global warming and concluded that Gore had it wrong."

Show and prove, my man. Show and prove.

[Duane]

neither did he (or anyone else, to my knowledge) argue a person 'had' to see the documentary to understand the issues.

But you did when you started this whole thing asking whether or not Ed and I saw the movie. I told you "No", but I have done a lot a research on the topic. But as predicted, that was not good enough. Then (hold up!) you criticized us for not seeing the movie as if it is the missing link of a debate that has been around for years.

the logical conclusion a level-headed reader could come to is neither of you are reliable sources on the movie, and perhaps the subjects of global warming and/or Al Gore.

Who said I was the reliable source? Did I not mention in the beginning...

"Typically I learn about an issue by listening to folks who are more versed in it than I."

My opinions on this matter are based on my own analysis of both sides of this argument. While I do believe that global warming does exist, there is no one consensus in the scientific community that it is man-made. And if you are driving you VW, you don't believe it either.

Al Gore is a failed politician who has demonstrated that he is too afraid to take on any of his critics head on regarding man-made global warming.

Show and prove, my man. Show and prove.

I have the link up right now. But since you are so well versed on the topic of global warming...the logical conclusion a level-headed reader could come to is that you prefer a one-sided argument and unwilling to do a simple google search.

And when you do find it, I am willing to predict that you will attempt to find some link with corporate sponsors (if one exists) in an attempt to defuse the argument. Yawn!

You are not the first person I have debated with on this issue. So far the discussion is following the same template as in previous encounters. In the meantime, I'm about to spew some more carbons in the atmosphere by workin' the grill today.

[DarkStar]

I haven't seen the movie but I've read enough about "global warming" and know enough basic science to doubt that any warming that is happening, if it is happening, is man-made.

My baseline point is, if the earth is warming, it's part of a natural cooling and warming cycle. For humans to be concerned about it, it has to be proven that, over the thousands of years, this warming has to be "unusual."

Plus, the ten hottest years ever recorded since records have been kept (1880) have occured since the early 1990's.

The problem is the record keeping since 1880. That's not much in the time span of the earth.

When I worked in England, I learned that during the time Romans controlled England -- when the English were barbarians, hah! -- there were mature grape vineyards in the country. Not only that, but flowers that grow naturally in warm weather climates, were growing naturally there.

Next, around the mid 1800s is the end of the last mini-ice age. There were 3 of them and one coincides with the period known as the dark ages if I remember correctly.

What do you make of the loss of glaciers, which is supposedly demonstrable?

While glaciers are melting in one area, they are INCREASING in another area. One scientist who used to support the idea of global warming, and now does not, measured the depth of ice in a region. He went back to the same location years later and measured the ice. He found the ice was not as thick as before and said this was proof of global warming. However, under peer review, scientists said that since he measured on a glacier, which moves, his study was invalid. He went back to the area using geo-spatial data, and measured, and the thickness of the ice had increased some. That was the start of him no longer supporting the idea of man induced global warming. And I wish I could remember the name.

[MIB]

"But you did [emphasis Duane's] when you started this whole thing asking whether Ed and I saw the movie."

You've misunderstood what I wrote. I was referencing the issue of the movie; not necessarily global warming theory.

BTW... where are the links to all this so-called research you've alleged?

Again, you're commenting on a movie you've not seen. Whatever your opinion is on it (or Gore), it doesn't qualify as informed. That's why your statements about Truth (and by extension, global warming theory) are unreliable.

There are several things here that you're alternately combining and parsing that's making your argument(s) inconsistent. First, the theory of global warming put forth in Truth says the phenomenon is caused by anthropological activity. It's only presented as one theory; not categorical fact. There is at least one alternative theory to cause of global warming (solar activity). It's certainly possible for multiple theories to be plausible simultaneously. But of the several theories as to the cause(s) of global
warming, the proverbial horse has left the barn long ago as to whether we are, indeed, experiencing an anomalous change in the Earth's climate.

"... there is no one consensus in the scientific community that it is man-made."

If you have truly done the research you've claimed to have done, you'd know that assertion is patently false. The scientific consensus is that global warming is due to human activity. But a consensus is different from unanimity. Truth makes no claim of scientific unanimity.

"And if you are driving you VW, you don't believe it either."

That's a non sequitur, Duane.

Now... if you'd be so kind as to provide that link...

Ed,

"... if the earth is warming, it's part of a natural cooling and warming cycle. For humans to be concerned about it, it has to be proven that, over the thousands of years, this warming has to be 'unusual'",

was answered in Truth with scientific data going back over 600,000 years. That length of time includes several Ice Ages.

[Duane]

BTW... where are the links to all this so-called research you've alleged?

Again, for someone who pretending to be well-versed in the matter, its seems odd that you are not aware of any opposing viewpoints or peer-reviewed studies disagreeing with man-made global warming. The information is out there, I've talked about it many times on my site.

No, I am not bluffing. I am just having some fun watching you dig another hole for yourself. Please stop!

Again, you're commenting on a movie you've not seen. Whatever your opinion is on it (or Gore), it doesn't qualify as informed. That's why your statements about Truth (and by extension, global warming theory) are unreliable.

My goodness! (sigh!)

Again-

Now if you want to debate on the issue of global warming itself, let's go!

I am commenting on the issue. The movie has become your 90 minute sermon you keep trying to lure me into. The debate of global warming did not start or end with Al Gore.

It's only presented as one theory; not categorical fact.

Yet Gore has been pushing the message as if it was fact. Check the website.

The scientific consensus is that global warming is due to human activity.

And let me guess, any other scientific viewpoint is wrong or inaccurate. Sheesh! Is there another template you can follow here?

Google will set you free, my brotha. Look at what I told you earlier and google it.

That's a non sequitur, Duane.

No, actually it is simply a mirror to your hypocrisy on the issue and further proof that you yourself do not buy into the theory while at the same time feel compelled to defend it.

[MIB]

No links, Duane?

Good night to you, sir. And God bless.

[Duane]

The scientific consensus is that global warming is due to human activity. But a consensus is different from unanimity. Truth makes no claim of scientific unanimity.

con·sen·sus - broad unanimity: general or widespread agreement among all the members of a group.

Al Gore:

"The debate among scientists is over," he told co-anchor Harry Smith on The Early Show Wednesday. "There is no more debate."

Yet when repeatedly asked to debate publically on the issue, Gore rejected each invitation.

When you make statements like the following...

"The scientific consensus is that global warming is due to human activity."

no link in the world will change your mind (or at least you are willing to admit). So why start on that pointless journey?

The study I am referring to was just issued last month. Beyond that, I hope you get the courage to look it up.

Peace!

[Aaron]

I don't know how Al got the Nobel Prize, according to the folks over at Fox news, and a truck driver in Great Britain, Gore just made all this stuff up about global warming, and doesn't have any conclusive concrete evidence to back him up.

Al Gore's Convenient Untruths

I'm beginning to think we live on different planets.

The heat and light in global warming

Apparently the global warming deniers have just been playing it cagey all along, a group of them recently purchasing the rights to build a floating summer resort at the North Pole, which will very shortly be completely clear of ice and those pesky polar bears.

Soon the latest rage among hip conservative vacationers will be waterskiing under the aurora borealis, and drinking all night in the new Arctic polar Sea where the nights last for six months.

Global Warming: Scientific Consensus Proved Wrong

Check the Retreating Ice Graph to see the planned site of the new summer resort.