Algore Disses Global Warming Skeptics

[JakeStarkey]

Algore Disses Global Warming Skeptics

and?

 

[Vigilante]

Christy? Bailunas? You've really scraped the bottom of the barrel here. And why are we looking at a post that treats Gore's movie of eight years back as if it were a current event?

Please link us up where he refutes what he's said there! Thank you, in advance!

 

[BobPlumb]

I like it warm!

 

[percysunshine]

I like it warm!

That deserves a discussion.

If the crop cycle in Canada and Siberia can be increased by one cycle in the summer, huge amounts of new food will be available to feed hungry people. Of course, the down side is that Columbia will only be able to produce coffee and cocaine. So there is a trade off.

.

 

[Vigilante]

I like it warm!

That deserves a discussion.

If the crop cycle in Canada and Siberia can be increased by one cycle in the summer, huge amounts of new food will be available to feed hungry people. Of course, the down side is that Columbia will only be able to produce coffee and cocaine. So there is a trade off.

.

Perhaps we can just GIVE FREE COCAINE to all the subversives who want it, in as big an amount as they want! After all, we GIVE AWAY FOOD STAMPS, and the odds are that the subversives will be so greedy that we won't have to give away Cocaine after 2 perhaps 3 years! Now, that's a good thing!

 

[Abraham3]

Please link us up where he refutes what he's said there! Thank you, in advance!

Where who refutes what he has said? You don't have Christy saying anything worth refuting. He has simply introduced a strawman to refute. No one is claiming that global warming is going to exterminate the species. Why don't you find some of Christy's comments regarding actual GW predictions: rising sea levels, crop failures, extinctions, water shortages, that sort of thing? Christy accepts that humans are responsible for the warming we've experienced, he just doesn't think the effects will be catastrophic. He is joined at the hip to octogenarian contrarian Roy Spencer with whom he shares a cozy pink bungalow in the Alabama swamps ( ;-) )

Baliunas has produced several controversial works. Along with Willie Soon, Ms Baliunas claimed that the satellite record showed no warming when it clearly did. Again with Soon, she claimed that the suns irradiance was far more likely to have produced the observed warming than was CO2. Her conclusions on that one were so poorly supported by the evidence she used that half the editorial staff in the journal in which this claim was made resigned and the journal apologized for having published it. She has also testified that the loss of ozone over Antarctica has not been caused by CFCs. So, all in all, she has been refuted repeatedly by most of the climate science community on multiple issues.

 

[Vigilante]

Please link us up where he refutes what he's said there! Thank you, in advance!

Where who refutes what he has said? You don't have Christy saying anything worth refuting. He has simply introduced a strawman to refute. No one is claiming that global warming is going to exterminate the species. Why don't you find some of Christy's comments regarding actual GW predictions: rising sea levels, crop failures, extinctions, water shortages, that sort of thing? Christy accepts that humans are responsible for the warming we've experienced, he just doesn't think the effects will be catastrophic. He is joined at the hip to octogenarian contrarian Roy Spencer with whom he shares a cozy pink bungalow in the Alabama swamps ( ;-) )

Baliunas has produced several controversial works. Along with Willie Soon, Ms Baliunas claimed that the satellite record showed no warming when it clearly did. Again with Soon, she claimed that the suns irradiance was far more likely to have produced the observed warming than was CO2. Her conclusions on that one were so poorly supported by the evidence she used that half the editorial staff in the journal in which this claim was made resigned and the journal apologized for having published it. She has also testified that the loss of ozone over Antarctica has not been caused by CFCs. So, all in all, she has been refuted repeatedly by most of the climate science community on multiple issues.

So cutting through your bullshit here, Al Gore was a fucking Liar, and you still agree with him!

 

[Abraham3]

No. Al Gore is not a liar. You are, though.

 

[bripat9643]

Christy? Bailunas? You've really scraped the bottom of the barrel here. And why are we looking at a post that treats Gore's movie of eight years back and the Kyoto signing of 17 as if they were current events?

I suspect that our poster here - Vigilante - is not real.

You know what is now 17 years old and not a "current event?" The last year the average temperature of the Earth increased.

 

[bripat9643]

No. Al Gore is not a liar. You are, though.

You and Algore are both a couple of liars.

 

[HenryBHough]

No. Al Gore is not a liar. You are, though.

You and Algore are both a couple of liars.

OMG!

That's shaping up like a primary for the Marx-O-Crat presidential nomination. Imagine, TWO candidates matching the primary qualification!

 

[Abraham3]

Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
You are all such a waste of time

 

[Vigilante]

No. Al Gore is not a liar. You are, though.

But, even the British Court ruled that there were nine inaccuracies in his film! How many more exist?"

 

[PredFan]

Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
You are all such a waste of time

I guess you like wasting your time don't you dumbass?

 

[Abraham3]

I'm wondering what this thread is about. Does someone here think Al Gore doesn't have the right (if not the moral obligation) to speak unkindly about AGW deniers? Does anyone here think LESS of him because of it?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm wondering what this thread is about. Does someone here think Al Gore doesn't have the right (if not the moral obligation) to speak unkindly about AGW deniers? Does anyone here think LESS of him because of it?

I think the entire AGW movement is a Cult, and a scary death-worshiping one at that

 

[Abraham3]

No. Al Gore is not a liar. You are, though.

But, even the British Court ruled that there were nine inaccuracies in his film! How many more exist?"

Good point. Certainly a better topic than the one this thread begins with. Let's go over those and see how they look in hindsight. I'd like to begin with the stated premise that an inaccuracy is not a lie. Additionally, the film was intended to inform the public. If was not created specifically to be shown to children in schools.

The nine inaccuracies
The judge described nine statements by Gore as departures from the scientific mainstream. However, Al Gore's spokesman has disputed this characterisation of the nine statements, which were as follows:

1) Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland.

Gore's view: "If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, the Low Countries: absolutely devastation. The area around Beijing is home to tens of millions of people. Even worse, in the area around Shanghai, there are 40 million people. Worse still, Calcutta, and to the east Bangladesh, the area covered includes 50 million people. Think of the impact of a couple of hundred thousand refugees when they are displaced by an environmental event and then imagine the impact of a hundred million or more. Here is Manhattan. This is the World Trade Center memorial site. After the horrible events of 9/11 we said never again. This is what would happen to Manhattan. They can measure this precisely, just as scientists could predict precisely how much water would breach the levee in New Orleans."[20]

Justice Burton's view: "This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus."[19]

Other scientific views: Gore does not say that the sea level would rise 7 metres in the immediate future, though he says that such a rise is a possibility (without specifying the timeframe). The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report predicts that the sea level could rise up to 59 cm by 2100, but excludes any effects from melting in Greenland and Antarctica because of the scientific uncertainties in predicting that scenario. While many scientists believe that neither land mass will melt significantly in the next century,[21] NASA climatologist James E. Hansen has predicted a major increase in sea level on the order of several metres by the end of the 21st century.[21]

My comments: The central point of the film was to alarm the public about a real danger. To criticize Mr Gore for that is absurd. Gore does NOT say that the Greenland ice sheet or the West Antarctic ice sheet are going to collapse in the immediate future. Both ice sheets ARE melting at an unprecedented rate and because its bedrock is below sea lever, the West Antarctic ice sheet is inherently unstable and a real risk exists of catastrophic collapse of the whole thing. Such a thing would end debate, primarily because most of the human race would be running for our lives.

2) Low-lying islands in the Pacific Ocean are having to be evacuated because of the effects of global warming.

Gore's view: "[T]hat's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand."[20]

Justice Burton's view: "There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened."[19]

Other scientific views: The inhabitants of the Carteret Islands in Papua New Guinea announced in 2005 that they would evacuate the islands and move to the much larger Bougainville Island, as their homeland was expected to be submerged by 2015.[21][22] The cause of the islands' submersion is a matter of debate; a United Nations official suggested that a local fishing practice of destroying reefs with dynamite might be responsible.[23]

My comments: The judge was wrong. Such evacuations have taken place.

3) The Gulf Stream would be shut down by global warming, causing sharp cooling in northwest Europe.

Gore's view: "One of the [scenarios] they are most worried about where they have spent a lot of time studying the problem is the North Atlantic, where the Gulf Stream comes up and meets the cold wind coming off the Arctic over Greenland and evaporates the heat out of the Gulf Stream and the stream is carried over to western Europe by the prevailing winds and the earth's rotation ... they call it the Ocean Conveyor. At the end of the last ice age … that pump shut off and the heat transfer stopped and Europe went back into an ice age for another 900 or 1,000 years. Of course that's not going to happen again, because glaciers of North America are not there. Is there any big chunk of ice anywhere near there? Oh yeah. [points at Greenland]"[20]

Justice Burton's view: "According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down."[19]

Other scientific views: A group of 12 climatologists was surveyed on this question in 2006 by Kirsten Zickfeld of the University of Victoria, Canada. Assuming a temperature rise of 4°C (7.2 °F) by 2100, eight of them assessed the probability of thermohaline circulation collapse as significantly above zero; three estimated a probability of 40% or higher.[24]

My comments: The MOC did indeed shut down at the end of the last ice age. Shutting it down would have catastrophic effects. Slowing it down will produce those same effects to a lesser degree. The scientific opinion is that a chance exists of that happening. Gore's comments were correct.

4) There was an exact fit between graphs showing changes in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and global temperatures over a period of 650,000 years.

Gore's view: "In all of this time, 650,000 years, the CO2 level has never gone above 300 parts per million. ... The relationship is very complicated. But there is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others and it is this. When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside."[20]

Justice Burton's view: "Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts."[19]

Other scientific views: Global warming episodes at the end of ice ages have not been triggered by rises in atmospheric CO2. However, this does not disprove the proposition that CO2 warms the atmosphere and that rising emissions of CO2 are the principal cause of global warming today.[21]

My comments: CO2 did not cause those historical rises, but it came to support them. See http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

5) The disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania was due to global warming.

Gore's view: "And now we're beginning to see the impact in the real world. This is Mount Kilimanjaro more than 30 years ago, and more recently. And a friend of mine just came back from Kilimanjaro with a picture he took a couple of months ago."[20]

Justice Burton's view: "Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Miliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change."[19]

Other scientific views: A 2006 study by a group at the University of Innsbruck concluded that "rather than changes in 20th century climate being responsible for [the glaciers'] demise, glaciers on Kilimanjaro appear to be remnants of a past climate that was once able to sustain them."[25]

My comments: This was an exaggeration. Gore should not have used this.

6) The shrinkage of Lake Chad in Africa was caused by global warming.

Gore's view: "This is Lake Chad, once one of the largest lakes in the world. It has dried up over the last few decades to almost nothing."[20]

Justice Burton's view: The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.[19]

Other scientific views: A NASA study released in 2001 concluded that Lake Chad's shrinkage resulted from a combination of irrigation demands and climate change: "Using model and climate data, Coe and Foley calculate that a 30% decrease took place in the lake between 1966 and 1975. Irrigation only accounted for 5% of that decrease, with drier conditions accounting for the remainder. They noticed that irrigation demands increased four-fold between 1983 and 1994, accounting for 50% of the additional decrease in the size of the lake."[26]

My comments: Increasing temperatures are responsible for a significant portion of the water lost from Lake Chad.

7) Hurricane Katrina was likewise caused by global warming.

Gore's view: "And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases, the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And you'll see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that Hurricane's eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there are no words to describe it. ... There had been warnings that hurricanes would get stronger. There were warnings that this hurricane, days before it hit, would breach the levies and cause the kind of damage that it ultimately did cause."[20]

Justice Burton's view: "In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that."[19]

Other scientific views: The World Meteorological Organization explains that "though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point."[27] They also clarified that "no individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change."[27]

My comments: Even when the temperature is up 5C, the poles have melted and sea level has increased by meters, we will be unable to say "this storm was caused by global warming". What we will be able to say - what we can say RIGHT NOW - is that weather is driven by temperature. The more energy in our atmosphere, the more energetic will be our weather on average. And as global temperatures rise, changes in long term patterns will take place: flooding, drought, no storms, more storms, etc ad destructum. This was one of several instances in which Gore's statements in the films were misquoted and mischaracterized. In the film, Gore properly qualified the connection between global warming and Hurricane Katrina.

8) Polar bears were being found drowned after having to swim long distances to find the (melting) ice.

Gore's view: "That's not good for creatures like polar bears that depend on the ice. A new scientific study shows that for the first time they're finding polar bears that have actually drowned, swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before."[20]

Justice Burton's view: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend continues."[19]

Other scientific views: The study in question is a September 2004 paper in Polar Biology which describes the unprecedented discovery of four drowned polar bears in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska.[28] The paper's lead author "doubts this was simply the result of exhaustion from having to swim further from ice to shore. More likely, weather conditions are becoming more severe in the growing expanses of open water, making swimming more difficult."[21]

My comments: We are headed for a no-ice state in the summer Arctic. Eventually, we will have no ice year round, but that's a fair ways down the road. Polar bears depend on the presence of ice year round. The idea that they will be unaffected by the loss of it is unsupportable nonsense.

9) Coral reefs were being bleached by the effects of global warming and other factors.

Gore's view: "Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and other factors are bleaching and they end up like this. All the fish species that depend on the coral reef are also in jeopardy as a result. Overall species loss is now occurring at a rate 1,000 times greater than the natural background rate."[20]

Justice Burton's view: "The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3°C, there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality, unless corals could adopt [sic] or acclimatise, but that separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult."[19]

Other scientific views: The most recent IPCC report does indeed state that most corals would bleach if temperatures rose more than 1°C over levels in the 1980s and 1990s. With the current rate of increase, further coral bleaching is considered highly likely. The rise in temperatures is also increasing the incidence of disease in corals, accelerating the rate of bleaching.[21]

My comments That "separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses" is difficult, does NOT mean that corals are not suffering climate change-related stresses. I have been scuba diving for the last 46 years. Corals worldwide are dying from increased temperatures. They are also suffering from pollution, fertilizer runoff and physical damage from boaters and divers, but the greatest of those threats to coral well being is increasing temperature. I don't think Gore even mentioned acidification.

PS: The British court case from which all this came was advertised as being the action of a Mr Stewart Dimmock, lorry driver and school governor with two kids. In fact, the action was backed by Lord Viscount Monckton with additional funding from an anonymous source. Mr Dimmock was used as a convenient figurehead to give the case a grass roots feel. Mr Dimmock had twice run for political office in the New Party, the party for which Lord Monckton penned a manifesto.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frankie Boy, remember when you had a brain? Me neither.

"LOL!! You tell 'em! Dazzle them with my tree rings!"

It's OK OR, you have to insult me because when it come to real science, you're totally fucked.

You never presented a single lab experiment that shows the relationship between CO2 and temperature and you never answered my "How much CO2 must you add to the volume of the oceans to lower the pH by .1?"

And we both know why you never answered and never will answer: because you're selling a fraud.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[elektra]

I'm wondering what this thread is about. Does someone here think Al Gore doesn't have the right (if not the moral obligation) to speak unkindly about AGW deniers? Does anyone here think LESS of him because of it?

And here it is, the crazy leftist says its a moral obligation to fight the conservatives who do not "believe".

The KKK and NAZI's believed they were acting morally.

It is easy to see how radical the AGW "Believers" are.