How did the left become the "party of science"?

[Oddball]

View attachment 867901

What did Algore get right, asshat?

Put up or STFU.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What did he get right?

Be specific....Put up or STFU.

Okay____________________________________________________________

Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?

skepticalscience.com

What The Science Says:
Al Gore's film was "broadly accurate" according to an expert witness called when an attempt was made through the courts to prevent the film being shown in schools.

Climate Myth: Al Gore got it wrong
“Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, was […] criticised by a high court judge who highlighted what he said were "nine scientific errors" in the film.

Mr Justice Barton yesterday said that while the film was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of climate change, he identified nine significant errors in the film, some of which, he said, had arisen in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration" to support the former US vice-president's views on climate change.” (The Guardian)

Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge​

This article is more than 16 years old
· Court rules documentary can be shown in schools
· Presentation is 'broadly accurate' but lacks balance

Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge

Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, was yesterday criticised by a high court judge who highlighted what he said were "nine scientific errors" in the film.

www.theguardian.com

 

[Meister]

View attachment 867901

Are you saying that the "boomers" want choice in their decisions, and the genZ wants the government to dictate
what is available to them?
Because, youngster, that is exactly what your saying.

 

[Arlette]

Made a shit load of money is what Al Gore got right.
That's what happens when politics get into the game of picking winners and losers.

He could always talk the talk, but would never consider walking the walk.

Climate change is real. It's happening right now. Al Gore was right and the GOP is still stuck with the anti science label. The GOP is a party for crackpots and quacks.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What did he get right?

Be specific....Put up or STFU.

and____________________________________________

Additionally, just as Gore's film depicted, carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise. "Carbon dioxide has now crossed the 400 parts-per -million mark," Scambos says. "The level for the 6,000 years prior to about 1900 was rarely more than 280 ppm."


In the decade since 2006, Scambos says, our understanding of climate change has evolved, but that data doesn't challenge the basic conceit of the film. "What we've learned are details--how warm ocean water is playing a role in both sea ice and ice sheet retreat; details in how the glacier and ice sheet flow speeds and thicknesses on Earth are changing; details on the past history of the ice ages and the triggers and timing of abrupt climate change."


Additionally, he notes, "Arctic sea ice continues to shrink in extent and thickness, setting new summer minimum records in 2007 and 2012, and showing a dramatic reduction this fall relative to the rate at which it should be growing. Greenland is losing mass at the rate of 200 billion tons per year; Antarctica is losing mass at about half that rate; and the world's mountain glaciers are shrinking."

What 'An Inconvenient Truth' Got Right (And Wrong) About Climate Change

Now that its sequel is out, where did Al Gore's landmark environmental documentary hit the mark? What did it get wrong?

science.howstuffworks.com

 

[Oddball]

Okay____________________________________________________________

Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?

skepticalscience.com

What The Science Says:
Al Gore's film was "broadly accurate" according to an expert witness called when an attempt was made through the courts to prevent the film being shown in schools.

Climate Myth: Al Gore got it wrong
“Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, was […] criticised by a high court judge who highlighted what he said were "nine scientific errors" in the film.

Mr Justice Barton yesterday said that while the film was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of climate change, he identified nine significant errors in the film, some of which, he said, had arisen in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration" to support the former US vice-president's views on climate change.” (The Guardian)

Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge​

This article is more than 16 years old
· Court rules documentary can be shown in schools
· Presentation is 'broadly accurate' but lacks balance

Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge

Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, was yesterday criticised by a high court judge who highlighted what he said were "nine scientific errors" in the film.

www.theguardian.com

Got more wrong than right, some of it waaaay off the mark, but is still claimed to be "broadly accurate".

You warmer moonats are funnah AF.

 

[Meister]

Climate change is real. It's happening right now. Al Gore was right and the GOP is still stuck with the anti science label. The GOP is a party for crackpots and quacks.

As I said early on, climate change has been happening since Earth had an atmosphere.

 

[Oddball]

and____________________________________________

Additionally, just as Gore's film depicted, carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise. "Carbon dioxide has now crossed the 400 parts-per -million mark," Scambos says. "The level for the 6,000 years prior to about 1900 was rarely more than 280 ppm."


In the decade since 2006, Scambos says, our understanding of climate change has evolved, but that data doesn't challenge the basic conceit of the film. "What we've learned are details--how warm ocean water is playing a role in both sea ice and ice sheet retreat; details in how the glacier and ice sheet flow speeds and thicknesses on Earth are changing; details on the past history of the ice ages and the triggers and timing of abrupt climate change."


Additionally, he notes, "Arctic sea ice continues to shrink in extent and thickness, setting new summer minimum records in 2007 and 2012, and showing a dramatic reduction this fall relative to the rate at which it should be growing. Greenland is losing mass at the rate of 200 billion tons per year; Antarctica is losing mass at about half that rate; and the world's mountain glaciers are shrinking."

What 'An Inconvenient Truth' Got Right (And Wrong) About Climate Change

Now that its sequel is out, where did Al Gore's landmark environmental documentary hit the mark? What did it get wrong?

science.howstuffworks.com

"Science"!

What Is the Logical Fallacy Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc?

Post hoc is a fallacy in which one event is said to be the cause of a later event simply because it occurred earlier.

www.thoughtco.com

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Okay____________________________________________________________

Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?

skepticalscience.com

What The Science Says:
Al Gore's film was "broadly accurate" according to an expert witness called when an attempt was made through the courts to prevent the film being shown in schools.

Climate Myth: Al Gore got it wrong
“Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, was […] criticised by a high court judge who highlighted what he said were "nine scientific errors" in the film.

Mr Justice Barton yesterday said that while the film was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of climate change, he identified nine significant errors in the film, some of which, he said, had arisen in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration" to support the former US vice-president's views on climate change.” (The Guardian)

Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge​

This article is more than 16 years old
· Court rules documentary can be shown in schools
· Presentation is 'broadly accurate' but lacks balance

Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge

Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, was yesterday criticised by a high court judge who highlighted what he said were "nine scientific errors" in the film.

www.theguardian.com

refute facts Meister , not just neg reps. There is criticism of Gore there too, just not outlandish political and personal attacks.

 

[otto105]

My critical thinking skills are just fine...That's why I don't fall for psuedo-scientific bullshit flim-flam scams, as appealing-to-authority nose pickers like you do.

Great, so lord muckington isn't your sole source for climate change denialism.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Got more wrong than right, some of it waaaay off the mark, but is still claimed to be "broadly accurate".

You warmer moonats are funnah AF.

Why must you act Trump-like and misrepresent most everything?

 

[Oddball]

and____________________________________________

Additionally, just as Gore's film depicted, carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise. "Carbon dioxide has now crossed the 400 parts-per -million mark," Scambos says. "The level for the 6,000 years prior to about 1900 was rarely more than 280 ppm."


In the decade since 2006, Scambos says, our understanding of climate change has evolved, but that data doesn't challenge the basic conceit of the film. "What we've learned are details--how warm ocean water is playing a role in both sea ice and ice sheet retreat; details in how the glacier and ice sheet flow speeds and thicknesses on Earth are changing; details on the past history of the ice ages and the triggers and timing of abrupt climate change."


Additionally, he notes, "Arctic sea ice continues to shrink in extent and thickness, setting new summer minimum records in 2007 and 2012, and showing a dramatic reduction this fall relative to the rate at which it should be growing. Greenland is losing mass at the rate of 200 billion tons per year; Antarctica is losing mass at about half that rate; and the world's mountain glaciers are shrinking."

What 'An Inconvenient Truth' Got Right (And Wrong) About Climate Change

Now that its sequel is out, where did Al Gore's landmark environmental documentary hit the mark? What did it get wrong?

science.howstuffworks.com

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

 

[Robert W]

As in " climate change is a hoax"?

The world is poised to have the coldest winter of record. Yet the Media and Democrats tell us this year has been the warmest. Let them prove why then it is getting so very cold. Europe is in the grip of their coldest winter as is the USA.

 

[otto105]

"Science"!

What Is the Logical Fallacy Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc?

Post hoc is a fallacy in which one event is said to be the cause of a later event simply because it occurred earlier.

www.thoughtco.com

read any of dings posts on subject.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

Gore also predicted in the film that "within a decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro." University of Massachusetts scientist Doug Hardy, who was a co-author of a 2002 Science article upon which Gore's statement was based, notes that the former vice president was taking a little literary license, since research shows that the snow cover has come and gone seasonally there for at least a century and a half. But the larger point — that the mountain's glaciers rapidly are vanishing — is essentially on the mark.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Made a shit load of money is what Al Gore got right.
That's what happens when politics get into the game of picking winners and losers.

He could always talk the talk, but would never consider walking the walk.

Even won a Nobel Prize, which only goes to show what an absurd mockery the Nobel Prize has become. What would Alfred Nobel think, if he were alive to see that, followed up by Barack Obama winning the prize for literally nothing?

You have to know that there is something significantly fucked-up about a world in which someone like AlGore is so richly rewarded for being so spectacularly wrong in every way.

 

[Arlette]

As I said early on, climate change has been happening since Earth had an atmosphere.

You bore me

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Made a shit load of money is what Al Gore got right.
That's what happens when politics get into the game of picking winners and losers.

He could always talk the talk, but would never consider walking the walk.

Good, I am glad he made money. I can think of worse ways for people to make money than fighting for a worthwhile cause.

 

[otto105]

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

Let's get this dtraight. You're using a 40 year-old movie as a source.

Is that because it happened earlier?

 

[Oddball]

Why must you act Trump-like and misrepresent most everything?

Trump isn't the subject, Godwin, and you haven't presented one single shred of understadable science on this entire thread.

So I ask again, show us the quantifiable formula....X CO2 = Y warming?

C'mon, moonbat....Show us the science or button you unprepossessing lip.