Junkscience debates Al Gore on global warming?

[AVengeance]

There have been numerous professors, so-called evolution experts, that have refused to debate Kent Hovind over macroevolution. It is easy to (perhaps erronously) surmise that the professors know they're full of shit and trying to preach a worldview rather than proven, testable, science. This anti-AlGore thing sounds a bit like that.

Is AlGore trying to preach a worldview, and that's why he refuses to "debate" ? Or maybe AlGore just doesn't think he's a very good debator, or that those he would be debating against would be better debators than himself? Many college professors have made these excuses.

Not saying that Gore is right or wrong, just presenting an interesting corrolation between subjects.

Gore isn't necessarily WRONG because he won't debate, just as some college professors aren't necessarily WRONG because they won't debate.

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

I'll see your dozen and raise you 500

It is difficult to believe a source when said source has a vested interest in convincing the public the world is ending in order to turn a profit.

Here is another bit of the article:
Here is the rest of the article in case you are interested.

It is interesting to see the source of your 500 peer reviewed research. The entire book was funded entirely by the Chairman of Natural Gas Services. You wonder why this person would have a stake in the global warming deniers??? Follow the money trail.

"ZERO Oil Money" Behind Singer/Avery Denier Text: Funding Came From Natural Gas

25 Sep 07

The climate change denial book of the year, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, has attracted a fair amount of abuse (see this great layman's review in the Daily Harold; or this scientific parsing from RealClimate.Org), but one of the authors' sons has posted a legitimate objection to the DeSmogBlog's early response that the book was the work of paid oil industry apologists.

In an email correspondence today, Alex Avery, a research director at the Exxon-funded Hudson Institute, said: "The book by (Alex's father) Dennis and Fred (Singer) was done entirely on funding from Wallace Sellers, a Hudson board member. There’s ZERO oil industry money behind it and your accusation is a desperate, factless assertion that is made because you can’t make a substantive science argument to refute Dr. Singer’s and Dennis’ claim that the warming we’ve observed over the 20th century is part of the natural climate cycles readily observed in the geologic/historical record.

Wallace Sellers, as it happens, is not in the OIL industry. But he IS the Chairman of Natural Gas Services, Inc., of Midland, Texas.

We stand corrected.

Also another tidbit on Fred Singer who is the main author of the book in your quote.

His critics say that Fred Singer has previously worked for tobacco companies fighting and argued that there's no evidence that smoking is bad for your health; he then argued that there was no evidence that ozone was being depleted. Now he argues that there's no evidence that the globe is warming. With credentials like those, you know what you're going to get: mostly misleading scientific arguments, served with a side of outright fabrication, and a sauce of unsupportable value judgments.

[JaJae]

I'm willing to bet Al Gore is by far more in the pocket of greedy organizations, in fact he started them and has profited millions from climate scares.. but let's attack the guy who fought for mischaracterized reasons. I agree Singer isn't the top dog here, but he's no worse than Al Gore, which by the way has gotten plenty of exposure to the media and our preaching to our government.

Keep in mind Singer has done studies questioning the effects of second hand smoke, he does not say smoking isn't bad for your health. He argued the case of CFCs and Ozones, which by the way he designed the instruments our satellites use to measure such things and now he's part of a study that compiles studies by scientists who disagree with the alarmism. But the grandiose fabrications and sensationalism is typical way of attacking anyone who doesn't follow the alarmism while completely ignoring the the same hypocrisy of those they agree with. God forbid someone actually compile a list of studies that go against what people like Al Gore want us to think, such irresponsible behavior must quickly be attacked and dismissed.

And by the way, there are far more studies and scientists in the world who don't buy into the alarmism. And you really can't discredit them all. The problem is it takes someone with bold statements and willing to put their careers on the line to lead the public charge. However, there's plenty of evidence against global warming alarmism, in fact all the evidence is against global warming alarmism... that's why they call it alarmism...

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

I can show you well over 100 scientific, academic and corporate groups that agree with the above statement. You can't show me a dozen that disagree. If you don't think that is the truth, please provide some evidence.

This is very valid and is a great suggestion by thatguyoverthere. I would be suprised if anyone found 10 scientific, academic, and corporate groups that disagreed with Global warming and agreed with the deniers.

All along the deniers are the one who has brought in Al Gore to the conversation and I think most arguing the validity usually go by the IPCC reports. I have yet to see someone arguing using Al Gore's quotes??

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Roonie

This is very valid and is a great suggestion by thatguyoverthere. I would be suprised if anyone found 10 scientific, academic, and corporate groups that disagreed with Global warming and agreed with the deniers.

All along the deniers are the one who has brought in Al Gore to the conversation and I think most arguing the validity usually go by the IPCC reports. I have yet to see someone arguing using Al Gore's quotes??

That's not the claim. The claim he is supporting is that most scientists agree with the alarmism, not that Co2 induced global warming exists. It has nothing to do with agreeing with the "deniers" and everything to do with claiming most scientists agree with the alarmism. Frankly, that's false.
Most scientists do not believe the polar bear lie, the hurricane myth, the rising sea levels to absurd degrees, etc to infinity. Basically everything just about everything Al Gore and other alarmists claim is either unpopular, deceitful or false. Yet people like Al Gore profit millions by spreading their propaganda.

And for the record just about all the people chastised and labeled as "deniers" don't doubt CO2 has an effect on climate, just that people like Al Gore are way off base and there's more to the story than the alarmists want us to believe. Going against the alarmism has warranted similar terminology and assaults as denying the Holocaust. It's ridiculous.

[JaJae]

Al Gore's mockumentary was debated to the courts after the public schools wanted to make film available to teachers for their students. The reason for the debate was well because Al Gore is full of shit and exaggerates, deceives and lies throughout the film.

I believe I made a thread about this about a month ago. It was the first time that climatologists had to debate both sides of the issue in a legal setting. The legal setting is great, it sets up a near-perfect forum for scientific debate while ruling out emotional dribble and falsehoods of perjury.

Originally it was reported that 11 key components of the film by Al Gore were BS. It appears that number has been weened down to nine. The judge didn't bar the school from being able to play the film, however, the schools must give present the film with guidance notes to prevent "political indoctrination!" Who would have thought the alarmism arguments were political indoctrination?

Judge Michael Burton ruled yesterday that errors had arisen "in the context of alarmism and exaggeration" in order to support Mr Gore's thesis on global warming.

The judge ruled that the film was not a scientific film, but rather a partisan political film and therefore since it wasn't a scientific film he couldn't ban it from the schools on legal merit. However, he instilled guidelines for viewing to prevent political indoctrination.

For those interested here are the 9 parts of the film that were ruled bullshit:
Al Gore's 'nine Inconvenient Untruths' - Telegraph

The nine alleged errors in the film

# Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said: "This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore's "wake-up call". He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia"."The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus."

# The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.

# The documentary speaks of global warming "shutting down the Ocean Conveyor" - the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was "very unlikely" that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.

# Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed "an exact fit". The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts".

# Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change.

# The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that "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."

# Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was "insufficient evidence to show that".

# Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice" The judge said: "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 was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - "but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description".

# Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.

When you add that all up and the amount of time spent on each, you're left to conclude essentially the entire film is one big propaganda piece of unsupported bullshit. Side note, Al Gore flew out to Europe to receive his Nobel prize... go figure!

[Scrum]

Funny how you believe a judge citing a report you called bullshit and not scientific.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Funny how you believe a judge citing a report you called bullshit and not scientific.

Report? huh?

Btw the other two previously mentioned errors in the film the judge had mentioned, but didn't cite in his ruling are:

* 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.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Report? huh?

Btw the other two previously mentioned errors in the film the judge had mentioned, but didn't cite in his ruling are:

The IPCC.


He cites it multiple times.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrum

The IPCC.


He cites it multiple times.

This argument has been made in this thread. Who cares if the IPCC was cited? I don't understand the relevance.

[JaJae]

Due to the court ruling there are calls for Al Gore to return his Oscar... sounds a lot like Michael Moore... go figure... same tactics.

Al Gore’s Oscar Award Should be Rescinded
Friday, 12 October 2007, 12:22 pm
Press Release: NZ Centre For Political Debate
Al Gore’s Oscar Award Should be Rescinded

Today Dr Muriel Newman, Director of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, has written to the President of the Academy Awards, requesting that the Oscar presented to Al Gore for the Best Documentary film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, be rescinded.

“With the release of the British High Court judgement overnight that found that ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, it is clear that Al Gore embellished the truth to create dramatic effect (see Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment - Times Online).

“Given that the Oscar Award was presented in the documentary category and not the drama category, the only appropriate action now is for the Academy to rescind the Award as it was clearly inappropriately classed as a documentary.

“The truth, as inconvenient as it is to Al Gore, is that his so-called documentary contained critical distortions that are quite contrary to the principles of good documentary journalism. Good documentaries should be factually correct. Clearly this documentary is not.

“This situation is not unlike that confronting sports bodies, when their sports “stars” are found to be drug cheats. In such cases, the sportsmen and women are stripped of their medals and titles, with the next-place getter elevated. While this is an extremely unpleasant duty, it is necessary if the integrity of competitive sport is to be protected.

“Just this week Olympic gold medal winner Marion Jones has been stripped of her titles and medals.

“If the integrity of the Academy Awards is to remain intact, is wholly appropriate that Al Gore be stripped of his ‘Best Documentary’ film Oscar.

“If the Academy wishes to acknowledge the work of people like Al Gore they should form a new category of film called ‘Political Drama’. That’s how ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ should be categorised”, Dr Newman said.

Scoop: Al Gore’s Oscar Award Should be Rescinded

It's great to see global warming alarmism called "political drama." Finally it's starting to become more and more mainstream. It was only a matter of time before people stopped putting up with the crap the alarmists are putting out.

[motivez]

Yeah, some guy in New Zealand totally represents the mainstream

[Roonie]

You know what is really cool and in your face........... This

Al Gore, UN Panel Share Nobel for Peace

By DOUG MELLGREN and MATT MOORE, Associated Press Writers

AP 43 minutes ago
OSLO, Norway - Former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change jointly won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Friday for their efforts to spread awareness of man-made climate change and to lay the foundations for fighting it.
Gore, who won an Academy Award earlier this year for his film on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," had been widely tipped to win the prize.
He said that global warming was not a political issue but a worldwide crisis.
"We face a true planetary emergency. ... It is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity," he said. "It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level."
The win is also likely add further fuel to a burgeoning movement in the United States for Gore to run for president in 2008, which he has so far said he does not plan to do.
Kenneth Sherrill, a political scientist at Hunter College in New York said Gore probably enjoys being a public person more than an elected official.
"He seems happier and liberated in the years since his loss in 2000. Perhaps winning the Nobel and being viewed as a prophet in his own time will be sufficient," says Sherrill.
Two Gore advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to share his thinking, said the award will not make it more likely that he will seek the presidency. If anything, the Peace Prize makes the rough-and-tumble of a presidential race less appealing to Gore, they said, because now he has a huge, international platform to fight global warming and may not want to do anything to diminish it.
One of the advisers said that while Gore is unlikely to rule out a bid in the coming days, the prospects of the former vice president entering the fray in 2008 are "extremely remote."
In its citation, the committed lauded Gore's "strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."
Ole Danbolt Mjoes, chairman of the prize committee, said the award should not be seen as singling out the Bush administration for criticism.
"A peace prize is never a criticism of anything. A peace prize is a positive message and support to all those champions of peace in the world."
Bush abandoned the Kyoto Protocol because he said it would harm the U.S. economy and because it did not require immediate cuts by countries like China and India. The treaty aimed to put the biggest burden on the richest nations that contributed the most carbon emissions.
The U.S. Senate voted against mandatory carbon reductions before the Kyoto negotiations were completed. The treaty was never presented to the Senate for ratification by the Clinton Administration.
"Al Gore has fought the environment battle even as vice president," Mjoes said. "Many did not listen ... but he carried on."
Gore supporters have been raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for petition drives and advertising in an effort to lure him into the Democratic presidential primaries. One group, Draftgore.com, ran a full-page open letter to Gore in Wednesday's New York Times, imploring him to get into the race.
Gore, 59, has been coy, saying repeatedly he's not running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, without ever closing that door completely.
He was the Democratic nominee in 2000 and won the general election popular vote. However, Gore lost the electoral vote to George W. Bush after a legal challenge to the Florida result that was decided by the Supreme Court.
Gore called the award meaningful because of his co-winner, calling the IPCC the "world's pre-eminent scientific body devoted to improving our understanding of the climate crisis."
Gore said he planned to donate his share of the prize money to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan nonprofit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion in the U.S. and around the world about the urgency of solving the climate crisis.
The last American to win the prize, or share it, was former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who won it 2002.
The committee cited the IPCC for its two decades of scientific reports that have "created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over 100 countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming."
It went on to say that because of the panel's efforts, global warming has been increasingly recognized. In the 1980s it "seemed to be merely an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the consequences still more apparent."
"It was a surprise," said Carola Traverso Saibante, spokeswoman for the IPCC. "We would have been happy even if (Gore) had received it alone because it is a recognition of the importance of this issue."
But some questioned the prize decision.
"Awarding it to Al Gore cannot be seen as anything other than a political statement. Awarding it to the IPCC is well-founded," said Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist."
He criticized Gore's film as having "some very obvious mistakes, like the argument that we're going to see six meters of sea-level rise," he said.
"They (Nobel committee) have a unique platform in getting people's attention on this issue, and I regret they have used it to make a political statement."
This year, climate change has been at the top of the world agenda. The U.N. climate panel has been releasing its reports; talks on a replacement for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate are set to resume; and on Europe's northern fringe, where the awards committee works, concern about the melting Arctic has been underscored by this being the International Polar Year.
Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, said the prize would help to continue the globally growing awareness of climate change.
"Their contributions to the prevention of climate change have raised awareness all over the world. Their work has been an inspiration for politicians and citizens alike," he said in a statement.
In recent years, the Norwegian committee has broadened its interpretation of peacemaking and disarmament efforts outlined by Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel in creating the prize with his 1895 will. The prize now often also recognizes human rights, democracy, elimination of poverty, sharing resources and the environment.
"We believe that the Nobel Committee has shown great courage by so clearly connecting the climate problems with peace," said Truls Gulowsen, head of environmental group Greenpeace Norway.
The Nobel Prizes each bestow a gold medal, a diploma and a $1.5 million cash prize on the winner.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Roonie

You know what is really cool and in your face........... This

[b]

He's in good company This only further proves my point His film also got an Oscar, it's about as political as this award. Think about how embarrassing this is. The man is a proven liar and alarmist who flies around the world polluting like crazy to profit from his lies.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, some guy in New Zealand totally represents the mainstream

Where did I say some guy in New Zealand represents the mainstream?

What I said was it's great to see it is becoming more mainstream to attack alarmism like Al Gore.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Where did I say some guy in New Zealand represents the mainstream?

What I said was it's great to see it is becoming more mainstream to attack alarmism like Al Gore.

And you used some guy in New Zealand as an example of that. I bet most Americans can't even find New Zealand on a map.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

And you used some guy in New Zealand as an example of that. I bet most Americans can't even find New Zealand on a map.

If all you've read on this subject was this thread you'd see there the British court system, a suit from new Zealand and junkscience.com... it doesn't really end there. But when someone's mind is made up and doesn't see the point in debating the issue t's easy to miss information or denounce it as not being able to find it on a map.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Due to the court ruling there are calls for Al Gore to return his Oscar... sounds a lot like Michael Moore... go figure... same tactics.



It's great to see global warming alarmism called "political drama." Finally it's starting to become more and more mainstream. It was only a matter of time before people stopped putting up with the crap the alarmists are putting out.

It's strange how you judge the credentials of experts. You quote... no, not a professor from a center for climate research, but the director of a center for political research!

And you call the OTHER side political?



As for junkscience.com...

Junkscience.com is run by a registered Washington lobbyist and FoxNews.com writer named Steven Milloy. Steven Milloy attacks the science linking secondhand smoke to cancer (paging Fred Singer!), as well as questioning the science behind global warming alarmism.

Steven Milloy also takes money from the tobacco industry as well as the oil industry.

Mr. Milloy also appears to view DDT and asbestos favorably, and apparently feels that there is “plenty of room” for critics to doubt evolution.

Steven Milloy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by ”link”

In 2004, when the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment was released by the Arctic Council and the International Arctic Science Committee, Milloy wrote that the report "pretty much debunks itself."[26] Milloy's assertions were disputed by the lead author of the study,[5] as well as by climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who criticized Milloy for taking "one result out of context and present[ing] unwarranted conclusions, knowing that a lay audience will not easily recognise their fallacy."[27]

In April 1998 Milloy was part of the Global Climate Science Team (GCST), which was founded in part by ExxonMobil to work out a strategy to influence the media to "understand (recognize) uncertainties in climate science."[4] The Union of Concerned Scientists reported that Milloy helped develop the GCST action plan, which involved "invest[ing] millions of dollars to manufacture uncertainty on the issue of global warming."[4] In 2005, it was reported that non-profit organizations operating out of Milloy's home, and in some cases employing no staff, have received large payments from ExxonMobil during his tenure with Fox News.

Among other companies (including energy and automotive), Steven Milloy was registered as a Washington lobbyist for a company called Monsanto.

Monsanto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by ”link”

Monsanto has been identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as being the "potentially responsible party" for 56 contaminated sites (Superfund Sites) in the United States.[6] Monsanto has been sued, and settled, multiple times for damaging the health of its employees or residents near its Superfund Sites through pollution and poisoning.[7][8] [9] In 2004 The Wildlife Habitat Council and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Environmental Performance Track presented a special certificate of recognition to Monsanto Company during WHC's 16th Annual Symposium. In 2005, Monsanto admitted to bribing senior Indonesian officials in order to evade environmental assessment and regulations. The company agreed to pay 1.5 million dollars in fines. [10]

Now Steven Milloy is an adjunct scholar for the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Competitive Enterprise Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by ”link”

In May 2006, CEI released a controversial ad campaign with two television commercials [5] arguing that global warming is not a problem. The commercials used the tagline "Carbon Dioxide - They call it pollution; We call it life." One ad stated that the world's glaciers are "growing, not melting... getting thicker, not thinner."[2] The ad cited two Science articles to support its claims. However, the editor for Science stated that the ad "misrepresents the conclusions of the two cited Science papers... by selective referencing". The author of the articles, Curt Davis, director of the Center for Geospatial Intelligence at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said CEI was misrepresenting his previous research to back their claims. "These television ads are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate," he said. [6]

…

Individuals associated with CEI have also been criticised. Steven Milloy has written extensively on global warming and other topics while receiving undisclosed funding from ExxonMobil. Following this disclosure, Milloy's name was removed from the list of adjunct scholars at the Cato Institute.

…

ExxonMobil Corporation was a major donor to CEI, with over $2 million in contributions between 1998 and 2005. [8] In 2002 the company gave $405,000;[9] in 2004 it gave CEI $180,000 that was earmarked for "global climate change and global climate change outreach." [3] In 2006, the company announced that they had ended their funding for the group.[10]

Now, do you actually think that Steven Milloy can be trusted to give you honest interpretations of environmental science?

[JaJae]

Have you read the article? I highly doubt you have.

[JaJae]

From the judge who ruled on the case:

It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film - although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion - but that it is a political film.

The alarmism arguments are shifting from being considered science to politics. There are many examples of this.