Junkscience debates Al Gore on global warming?

[Donkey®]

Al Gore is not a scientist. He doesn't do the research and experiments required to obtain such a title. Therefore, he should not be debating scientists.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The alarmism arguments are shifting from being considered science to politics.

By a judge in the UK.

[JaJae]

Rudy Guiliani, a US Presidential candidate attacked Al Gore for his hysteria today...
Political Radar: Giuliani: Gore Adds 'Hysteria' to Climate Crisis

ABC News' Bret Hovell Reports: Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani congratulated Al Gore Friday for winning the Nobel Peace Prize, but said that Gore sometimes presents the issue of climate change with "hysteria."

There are many more. It is becoming more commonplace. I can keep listing scenarios like this, but it seems some people like to focus on just one and claim it isn't happening.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Rudy Guiliani, a US Presidential candidate attacked Al Gore for his hysteria today...
Political Radar: Giuliani: Gore Adds 'Hysteria' to Climate Crisis


There are many more. It is becoming more commonplace. I can keep listing scenarios like this, but it seems some people like to focus on just one and claim it isn't happening.

Post the whole thing.

ABC News' Bret Hovell Reports: Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani congratulated Al Gore Friday for winning the Nobel Peace Prize, but said that Gore sometimes presents the issue of climate change with "hysteria."
"I think he has done good things in pointing out the danger and the risks of global warming," Giuliani said to supporters and the press in Charleston, SC.
"I'm not sure that we have to distort our whole economy and our whole life to deal with it as if this is a problem, an emergency that's imminent in the next two or three years, which is the way sometimes he presents it," Giuliani continued. "Maybe he doesn't mean to, but sometimes he presents it with kind of a sense of almost hysteria."
Giuliani went on to talk about some of the solutions he sees for dealing with environmental issues, such as clean coal and more nuclear power plants. And he criticized Gore for not offering solutions to the problems.
"I give him credit for focusing on the issue," Giuliani said. "I'd prefer if it were more substantive in terms of solutions. But when you point out an issue like this, you get credit for it."
Giuliani did not dismiss completely the notion of global warming, calling it a "long-term serious problem that we have to deal with."
He also acknowledged that Gore's success in Stockholm is good for the country.
"It's always a credit to America when an American wins the Nobel Peace Prize."

And I think most people who believe in global warming would agree totally with this. I'm actually shocked that Rudy said something that doesn't make me throw-up in my mouth.

Just because Al has a flair for the dramatics, doesn't dismiss the science.

[Donkey®]

What's more dangerous...



"OMG WMDs!!!!" "SADDAM WILL KILL YOU!!!" "LET's INVADE!!!"



or


"IF YOU DON'T STOP DESTROYING YOUR ENVIRONMENT YOU'LL KILL YOURSELF AND THE EARTH WILL DIE!!!"



Should we measure the results in wasted money? In bodies? I could care less if Gore got every single fact wrong...the bottom line is that Global Warming is now paid attention to. Period.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Should we measure the results in wasted money? In bodies? I could care less if Gore got every single fact wrong...the bottom line is that Global Warming is now paid attention to. Period.

Why can't both simply be wrong and worthy of discussion? Why does it have to be an either/or scenario? And what does George Bush have to do with Al Gore and global warming?

"OMG WMDs!!!!" "SADDAM WILL KILL YOU!!!" "LET's INVADE!!!"

or

"IF YOU DON'T STOP DESTROYING YOUR ENVIRONMENT YOU'LL KILL YOURSELF AND THE EARTH WILL DIE!!!"

Relax, it's only global warming alarmism. Nothing to go worked up over.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Post the whole thing.

Thanks for posting all of it.. I like this line:

"It's always a credit to America when an American wins the Nobel Peace Prize."

I agree completely. It's a shame some people allow partisanship to get in the way of recognizing that publicity for America in the form of this is better than almost anything we've managed to do for ourselves on a global scale in the last 7 years..

Originally Posted by 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?

Wow, very interesting.. full disclosure is important and I appreciate you doing so much research to let people know about who the source for the information in the original post is.

I'm not really sure I can take someone seriously as a scientist who has a history of denying other scientific facts, ie: danger of second hand smoke, DDT, asbestos.. He doesn't seem to really have much credibility on that front.. certainly less than someone like Gore, who really is repeating consensus information from climate experts.

I'm not all too surprised to learn that he's received money from the energy industry.. it seems the vast majority of people who claim to be scientists and are on the other side of the issue have.. but this guy essentially has made his career working against the environment.. It seems his domain name, junkscience.com, is aptly named.

[JaJae]

It's apparent people haven't read the actual works they're citing.

Here's another though:
Gore gets a cold shoulder - Environment - smh.com.au

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

...

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's apparent people haven't read the actual works they're citing.

Here's another though:
Gore gets a cold shoulder - Environment - smh.com.au

The leading scientist that this article is about is Dr William gray. Here's some info on him;



Bill Gray is excoriated in public, rightfully in my opinion, because he's essentially accused the entire scientific community of fraud ... and for no other reason that I can figure out other than he didn't get the funding he feels he deserves. As a scientist, he knows that the type of conspiracy theories he's suggesting simply cannot actually occur. This has led to a real loss of respect within the community for him. [did you see the paper he submitted to the AMS tropical meteorology conference? it actually had a quote from Inhofe in it!!! how can he expect to be taken seriously?] [1]

[JaJae]

And the person who wrote that about him thinks the IPCC doesn't do enough to change world policies on climate change. He also attends Gore's "training seminars."

If anything Gray is as much of a fraud as Al Gore or even Dessler. However, he is respected in the scientific community as he is one of the leading meteorologists in the world and his opinions on hurricane predictions is considered of the best. Al Gore lied about hurricane involvement in global warming. Gray, who knows enough on the issue is saying he's brainwashing.

And the whole point was that once again we have another person coming out speaking against Al Gore and climate change, thus making the notion more mainstream. This Nobel Prize is going to do two things, give Gore more support for those who already adore him... but it will also give more of a reason to speak out for those who disagree with him.

If you read the rest of the article you'll see Gray has his own theory of climate change that I don't necessarily agree with. But, I'm sure he has as much evidence to believe it as Al Gore has to believe his theory. In any event, yes they're probably all hacks... but it is yet more dissent in the media. Both England and Australia as of late have been turning more and more against the global warming alarmism. It's interesting to see actually and I wonder if America will follow suit. I think it'll take a little more time in our media because of the way our media has been structured around alarmism and sensationalism for so long.

[JaJae]

Another major UK editorial who isn't a denier or skeptic has a problem with Al Gore and the media.
Comment is free: The truth will out

Where does science end and politics begin? On climate change this is a particularly thorny question. For over a decade now we have seen a heated and increasingly bitter debate between environmentalists and sceptics about to what extent the globe is warming, who is responsible, and what (if anything) we ought to do about it.

[Roonie]

Really an opinion article for proof????

OP ED opinion articles don't count.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Roonie

Really an opinion article for proof????

OP ED opinion articles don't count.

I didn't say it proved anything other than it's becoming more mainstream to question the alarmism... especially in the UK and Australia. It is slowly becoming acceptable to call the global warming debate "political" and I think a lot of it has to do with Al Gore's exaggerations/lies and the media sensationalism. People are slowly starting to say enough.

[JaJae]

Here's a BBC news clip regarding Al Gore's views. They're getting pretty lethal...
BBC

How long before these types of stories are mainstream in our media? The global warming consensus is not what Al Gore and the alarmists are preaching. Some news outlets around the world are finally starting to inform their readers/viewers of this. I think Al Gore's Peace Prize is going to spark that even further.

I think the biggest statement in that story is that they said Al Gore was wrong about CO2 and climate being an exact fit and that historically CO2 has driven climate. Those are two huge corrections to the alarmism perspective.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

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

There is a scientific consensus.

The IPCC represents the scientific consensus.

The judge agrees, and uses the IPCC consensus as the benchmark. Even the claimants' lawyer agrees that the IPCC represents the scientific consensus.

According to the judge in this hearing, "An Inconvenient Truth" is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact.

These are the facts: Global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise. Climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions. Climate change will, if left unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations. And, there are indeed measures that we can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its negative effects.

THAT is the SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. Those four assertions of fact are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

There is a scientific consensus.

The IPCC represents the scientific consensus.

The judge agrees, and uses the IPCC consensus as the benchmark. Even the claimants' lawyer agrees that the IPCC represents the scientific consensus.

The IPCC does not represent any form of a consensus. What the IPCC does is take many studies and piece them together to form a political ideology. The individual scientists conducting each study may not necessarily agree with the IPCC overview, and in many cases the studies are spot selected, exaggerated and the results are misused... as reported by the people who actually conducted them.

And yes, there is a consensus on global warming. That consensus is that carbon dioxide has an effect, but that does not define to what degree CO2 has on global temperature and it surely doesn't support the notion that the consensus is alarmism. To that extent even the "skeptics" would agree. That is a false assumption.

According to the judge in this hearing, "An Inconvenient Truth" is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact.

These are the facts: Global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise. Climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions. Climate change will, if left unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations. And, there are indeed measures that we can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its negative effects.

THAT is the SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. Those four assertions of fact are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists.

Where is there support for the notion that climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions? The climate has always changed, long before man-made emissions.

Where is there support for the notion that climate change if left unchecked will have significant adverse effects on the world populations?

How much will it cost and what effects will our measures do on global warming?

Those weren't assertions of fact. They were theory and political opinion.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The IPCC does not represent any form of a consensus. What the IPCC does is take many studies and piece them together to form a political ideology. The individual scientists conducting each study may not necessarily agree with the IPCC overview, and in many cases the studies are spot selected, exaggerated and the results are misused... as reported by the people who actually conducted them.

And yes, there is a consensus on global warming. That consensus is that carbon dioxide has an effect, but that does not define to what degree CO2 has on global temperature and it surely doesn't support the notion that the consensus is alarmism. To that extent even the "skeptics" would agree. That is a false assumption.



Where is there support for the notion that climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions? The climate has always changed, long before man-made emissions.

Where is there support for the notion that climate change if left unchecked will have significant adverse effects on the world populations?

How much will it cost and what effects will our measures do on global warming?

Those weren't assertions of fact. They were theory and political opinion.

So you DISAGREE with the judge on all those assertions?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

So you DISAGREE with the judge on all those assertions?

I don't think I fully understand your post or what you're fully trying to say. Do you have a source to something I should be reading? If so, please post it up.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The IPCC does not represent any form of a consensus.

Not according to the judge in the case you are citing as evidence against the veracity of Al Gore's scientific claims.

According to the judge in the case you are citing as evidence against the veracity of Al Gore's scientific claims, IPCC does represent a consensus.

Originally Posted by JaJae

And yes, there is a consensus on global warming. That consensus is that carbon dioxide has an effect, but that does not define to what degree CO2 has on global temperature and it surely doesn't support the notion that the consensus is alarmism. To that extent even the "skeptics" would agree. That is a false assumption.

According to the judge in the case you are citing as evidence against the veracity of Al Gore's scientific claims, the consensus is that global warming is happening, human activity is significantly contributing, and the risks of inaction are real.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Where is there support for the notion that climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions?

The judge's ruling in the case you are citing as evidence against the veracity of Al Gore's scientific claims.

Originally Posted by JaJae

The climate has always changed, long before man-made emissions.

Yeah, so? No one denies that the climate has ever changed! Why are you making that argument?

Originally Posted by JaJae

Where is there support for the notion that climate change if left unchecked will have significant adverse effects on the world populations?

The judge's ruling in the case you are citing as evidence against the veracity of Al Gore's scientific claims.

Originally Posted by JaJae

How much will it cost and what effects will our measures do on global warming?

Dunno, but either incur the monetary cost now or risk the human cost later.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Those weren't assertions of fact. They were theory and political opinion.

No, not political opinion anymore. LEGAL opinion.

[JaJae]

I'll respond fully when I get a link. It appears you're paraphrasing something the judge said, but I'd rather read it in context before I respond. And legal opinion is not fact... Most of what you said was opinion, not fact. Being legal opinion does not make it fact. The judge isn't even a scientist, all he can do is make a ruling based on the quality of information before him. His personal opinions on the issue should have no bearing on the actual facts of the case. The facts of the case is what he rules on, not personal opinion. But even still, I'd like to see what he actually said in context. That would be interesting.