Junkscience debates Al Gore on global warming?

[JaJae]

Al Gore to this point has refused any form of a debate with any leading climatologist. He has been challenged to a debate over and over again. He has refused to back up his statements to someone willing to challenge them. There have been cash rewards laid out if he'd debate, donations to charity, etc. Everything you can think of under the sun to get Al Gore to debate has been tried.

So in a ditch effort, Junkscience.com is making their own debate clips with previous Al Gore statements and statements from people who disagree with him. The video was released to YouTube. This isn't a real debate and is just a video of Gore on the same subject as people who disagree. Al Gore and the other scientists are not given the chance to defend their statements, which in all actuality is the way Gore seems to like it.

Basically this is the first time I've seen someone take the accepted Al Gore global warming statements and directly contradict it in video form. I've seen the video junkscience pulled their sources from, and it was an overall video and not a direct attack on the individual points so well laid out like this.

Here's part one of the series...

YouTube Video

So basically what we have is Al Gore claiming that CO2 and Temperature are linked as shown in his graph. He takes his graph and zooms it out to very far lengths so that you can't see the actual causal relationship. In my opinion this is done so you can't see that CO2 actually comes after temperature increases. This is something people like Al Gore do not want you to know. Al Gore also blames current temperature trends on CO2, yet once again wants to keep his audience ignorant to the actual graphs and numbers. Al Gore clearly only wants to tell one half of his side of the story and let people draw their own conclusions based on incomplete or misguided information not unlike the techniques Michael Moore utilizes in his films.

Neither side proved their case that Co2 does or doesn't cause temperature increases. But Al Gore's statements are shown to have a lot of misleading information and gaping holes in the foundation of his conclusions. In doing so, much of the commonly accepted ideas on global warming within the modern media has been thrown out the window. There is obviously good reason to challenge the points made by Gore and there is scientific justification to investigate other explanations than the status quo. Both sides have access to the same information and they use the same data to draw their conclusions. However, one side doesn't want you to know key elements of which the basis of their theory is based upon. And one side would have you believe that there is no legitimate debate. Whether you agree with one side or the other, it's clear that there is absolutely cause to be skeptical of the mainstream interpretation of global warming.

[thatguyoverthere]

Very interesting. The video is well done. Maybe this, or something like this will renew debate about global warming. We'll see how this turns out in the future.

[Roonie]

Science is always open to change when their is more information and facts. Hypothesis are always revised.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Roonie

Science is always open to change when their is more information and facts. Hypothesis are always revised.

The trick is to make sure all the information and facts are presented the nation. Only then can there be true civic discourse on the issue. Unfortunately people like Al Gore don't want the masses to have all the information.

[thatguyoverthere]

Jajae, this video cites the IPCC. You've said in the past that you do not accept the IPCC as scientifically authortitative, and that the IPCC reports was written by politicians and not science experts.

Do you not find a contradiction there? You're citing this video as factual information, yet this video cites a source that you have completely dismissed as factual.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Jajae, this video cites the IPCC. You've said in the past that you do not accept the IPCC as scientifically authortitative, and that the IPCC reports was written by politicians and not science experts.

Do you not find a contradiction there? You're citing this video as factual information, yet this video cites a source that you have completely dismissed as factual.

In what way exactly does this video cite the IPCC? If your reference is the video stating that the temperature data both sides are using is the same data accepted by the IPCC, then I completely fail to see the relevance to any argument of contradiction.

Essentially all climate research is done with the same historic temperature data. They're not claiming the temperature data is wrong. What they're arguing is the interpretations of that data. As you can clearly see from this video the data doesn't have to be different in order to dispute the interpretations. I still claim the IPCC Summary Report for Policy Makers to be a report with strong political influence. That doesn't mean the very mention of using data the IPCC uses to come to policy decisions is contradictory. I can agree that some of their data sets are universal, but I can also disagree with the interpretations of that data and what they think the world should do because of it.

The reality though is that instead of zooming the data out so far that a few hundred years is discernible to the naked eye.. What do you think the audience reaction to an Inconvenient Truth would have been if Al Gore zoomed in on the CO2/Temp relationship and viewers were informed that CO2 changes lag climate change by hundreds of years and can really fully explain why, but they pretend it isn't so because their hypothesis they've been sold and they don't want you knowing the truth.

So in reality they're saying "SEE LOOK, using their own data we can show you they're not making any friggin sense. They're misleading you. Here is the data, up close and in your face. You decide." They should be focusing on human CO2 since that's what they're blaming the trends on and clearly CO2 has no causal link to temperature gains after the industrial revolution or even before for that matter. Throughout history warming climates seem to generate more CO2 after a few hundred years. Which seems to me to be normal considering life on the planet typically thrives in warming settings. Whether that's a good answer or not, it makes sense to me. And it's a lot better than lying by omission over the relationship. A very strong case can be made to show that CO2 is the product of a warming environment. In fact, the data seems to show exactly that when you don't intentionally mislead your viewers by hiding the facts from them.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The trick is to make sure all the information and facts are presented the nation. Only then can there be true civic discourse on the issue. Unfortunately people like Al Gore don't want the masses to have all the information.

All information is available to the public. Even the kinds that have no basis in science.

Don't act as if Gore is trying to block anything from coming out.

[Nonphixion]

Interesting. It is always good to see the flipside view of things.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrum

All information is available to the public. Even the kinds that have no basis in science.

Don't act as if Gore is trying to block anything from coming out.

He is. He is a part of the culture surrounding global warming that tries to hinder debate and opposing views while presenting half-truths and sometimes blatant lies. He certainly hasn't encouraged counter opinion, nor has he remained neutral.

I don't see how flying around the world using one's celebrity status to tell the world the debate is over and anyone who disagrees is a hack is exactly encouraging the free exchange of ideas. He's hindering the promotion of counter opinion so people will continue to believe his half-truths.

[thatguyoverthere]

JaJae, IMO, if you cite the IPCC's data as accurate, you should be willing to give serious consideration to the opinions of scientific organizations who have reached conclusions based upon that same data. Here on the forum in the past, you have rejected the conclusions of scientific organizations because you fundamentally reject the legitimacy of the IPCC, (referring to their reports as being written by politicians and not by real climate experts.) Are you changing your position on the legitimacy of the IPCC?

To me, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. If a few scientists use the IPCC data and reach a conclusion that you personally like, then this conclusion, to you, is the truth. If other scientists reach a conclusion that you don't agree with, then suddenly in your view the IPCC has nothing to do with real science and is justifiably ignored as nothing but politics. I don't think you should be allowed to pick and choose when the IPCC is or is not scientifically authoritative without being called on it. I see a tremendous disconnect in your position.

Originally Posted by JaJae

He is. He is a part of the culture surrounding global warming that tries to hinder debate and opposing views while presenting half-truths and sometimes blatant lies. He certainly hasn't encouraged counter opinion, nor has he remained neutral.

How can Al Gore be blocking anything coming out, or blocking anyone from studying the data and coming to their own conclusions themselves? Isn't that what the fellows who made the video did? Gore relies on IPCC data to make his case. All that data is openly available to anyone who wants to look at it.

Some people might think the exact same things about the anti-Gore crowd, that they too try " to hinder debate and opposing views while presenting half-truths and sometimes blatant lies". Some might also say that the anti-Gore crowd is working from a basic political and personal hatred for Gore, and have been manipulated by dishonest scientists who take advantage of the anti-Gore crowds lack of scientific knowledge, selectively leaving out factors and arguments that non-experts would likely miss.

If your evidence that he hasn't encouraged counter opinion by debating the "experts" at junkscience.com, you're right. Again, another viewpoint is that why should Gore waste his time "debating" with some guys from a website?

And Gore has no reason (nor any obligation) to stay neutral on this subject. He is a private citizen (albeit a very well known one.) Gore believes that human activity is contributing to global warming and that we should take action to mitigate our effects on the climate as we possibly can. Furthermore, Gore's beliefs are backed up by over a hundred organizations representing thousands of experts. There's not even half a dozen organizations that will publicly endorse the opposite viewpoint. Why do you think that is?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

JaJae, IMO, if you cite the IPCC's data as accurate, you should be willing to give serious consideration to the opinions of scientific organizations who have reached conclusions based upon that same data.

Why? And I do take serious consideration for their opinions. I just disagree. A lot of our historic temperature data is not done by the IPCC, it's done by NASA and other government agencies. The IPCC uses that data and accepts it as their standard for their studies. There's no reason anyone else shouldn't and it sure as hell doesn't mean you have to agree with anyone who also happens to accept that data.

To remove ourselves from the global warming debate. That's like saying Michael Moore accepts the same data as the United States government on the number of troops harmed in Iraq, therefore you should give serious considerations of the opiniosn of Michael Moore. That's a very fallacious argument.

How about this for Devil's Advocate.. the IPCC accepts the same data as those skeptical of global warming alarmism, therefore you should serious reconsider your views.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Why? And I do take serious consideration for their opinions. I just disagree. A lot of our historic temperature data is not done by the IPCC, it's done by NASA and other government agencies. The IPCC uses that data and accepts it as their standard for their studies. There's no reason anyone else shouldn't and it sure as hell doesn't mean you have to agree with anyone who also happens to accept that data.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by JaJae

To remove ourselves from the global warming debate. That's like saying Michael Moore accepts the same data as the United States government on the number of troops harmed in Iraq, therefore you should give serious considerations of the opiniosn of Michael Moore. That's a very fallacious argument.

Well, if his opinion is based on accurate data, wouldn't that make it an informed opinion? Why shouldn't you give serious consideration to informed opinions? Isn't that what debate and idea exchange is all about?

Originally Posted by JaJae

How about this for Devil's Advocate.. the IPCC accepts the same data as those skeptical of global warming alarmism, therefore you should serious reconsider your views.

Yes, if there were as many groups of experts skeptical of global warming alarmism as there were that accept global warming alarmism, you would be right.

But the reality is something like this:

100 groups of experts use IPCC data
99 groups of experts agree with global warming alarmists
1 group of experts agree with those skeptical of global warming alarmism

I'm not going to look at that 1% and pretend that the ratio of agreement to disagreement is 50-50.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Well, if his opinion is based on accurate data, wouldn't that make it an informed opinion? Why shouldn't you give serious consideration to informed opinions? Isn't that what debate and idea exchange is all about?

I have never made the claim that the IPCC is not an informed decision. I have, however, claimed that their views are far more political than anything and their research is flawed.

Yes, if there were as many groups of experts skeptical of global warming alarmism as there were that accept global warming alarmism, you would be right.

But the reality is something like this:

100 groups of experts use IPCC data
99 groups of experts agree with global warming alarmists
1 group of experts agree with those skeptical of global warming alarmism

I'm not going to look at that 1% and pretend that the ratio of agreement to disagreement is 50-50.

99% of scientific groups do not agree with global warming alarmism. That is completely false. Most groups fall somewhere between the skeptics and the alarmists. The problem is the media only focuses on the alarmism giving people the misconception that those views are true. This happens for a number of reasons, but mostly because it makes for a great catastrophic story of interest which captures attention and thus garnishes ad/commercial revenue.

Half a decade ago when we were pumping tons of CO2 into the environment the temperatures were cooling. The media jumped on the sensationalism that the earth was cooling. The science they used to draw those conclusions were weak, however, most likely well intentioned. However, as we've seen here in this Al Gore video that is being taught in many public schools, the alarmists are going to great lengths to hide truths from the public that poke glaring holes in their entire hypothesis. It is dishonest and unethical. It is lying by omission. There are many other lies in the sensationalist mentality, many of which were advanced by Gore such as hurricanes, polar bears drowning, etc. Keep in mind at what they lie and exaggerate about... they're emotional issues. Hurricane Katrina happens, the nation is in uproar and the sensationalists quickly jump on the global warming bandwagon. They hit the cute animals drowning bandwagon. They lie about the health effects, etc. Why do the alarmists need to lie about all of these issues and hide the truth from us?

If their views were so concrete and the debate is over, why must they continue to lie? What are they so afraid of? Why must they continue to lie to us to keep the population fearful of global warming? Are the effects of warming on their own not damning enough? Why must we be deceitful over the data regarding the relationship between CO2 and temperature over time?

Listening to the sensationalists we're lead to believe that CO2 goes hand in hand with temperature, as the CO2 goes up the temperate increases because CO2 is a greenhouse gas and warms the earth. The more CO2 we have the warmer the earth is going to be. That's all well and good, but does it cause extreme global temperature change as they claim?

The data clearly demonstrates the opposite. The earth warms and then the CO2 increases after hundreds of years. That's like saying the pain from your knee comes before you get kicked. We all know this to be untrue. If CO2 were causing temperate increases it would have to be go hand in hand with rising temperatures or temperatures would have to warm soon after CO2 increases. But the exact opposite is true. To top it off, the only real data we have to show that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming is data regarding the past century. The glaring hole in that theory is that temperatures were rising before we started pumping massive CO2 into the atmosphere and then receeded for decades while we were dumping massive CO2 into the atmosphere. More than half the data completely contradicts the entire premise of the theory. Why don't alarmists tell us this? And how come any scientist who wants the public to be aware of this information is not credible by their standards and chastised? That's the problem I have with this whole debate. Both sides have honesty issues, but they are both needed to tell the two sides to the story needed to draw conclusions. But one side is attempting to silence the other side so they can continue to lie to the world about the realities of climate change. I have a problem with that.

Do I believe CO2 has an impact on temperature the same as any greenhouse gas? Yes I do. I rank it up there as having the similar effects as water vapor. The problem is that CO2 is such a minor component to the overall greenhouse gases that I can't contribute a massive climate change to it. Does it have an effect? Sure, without a doubt. Is it causing polar bears to drown and responsible for a major climate shift on our planet? Um.. no. And no scientist in the world can come close to proving such a claim.

The global warming debate has stopped being about science a long time ago. Look in this thread for all the proof you need. A video is posted with two sides presenting a scientific argument. The point is to analyze each argument and think for ourselves.. hence the title "We Debate, You decide." However, the debate is not about the science and the strength of each sides arguments, it's about believing certain political groups over another. This is what alarmists like Al Gore want us to do. They don't want us to investigate their theories. We have here in this video scientists showing us with the same data Al Gore is using that he is misleading us and not telling us the full story. They then give us a deeper look into the issue for the purpose of us to stop following the alarmism blindly and accept the fact that there are serious problems with the shit we're being fed, to put it bluntly. Whether we agree fully with what they're saying or not they are using scientific evidence and they are making a very good case that punches a hole right at the very core of the global warming debate. Why doesn't Gore address these issues? Why don't any of the alarmists address these issues? People are putting a lot of money on the line just to get people like Al Gore to respond to these claims. They doesn't even have to make sense, they just has to show up essentially. But, they won't. They refuse to debate their theories. What kind of scientist is not willing to defend their hypothesis or allow counter opinion? I surely haven't met one outside the global warming debate.

Global Warming is the only scientific argument in the world today where one side of the debate attempts to silence their opponents and prevent counter studies and information from being brought to the public. That's not science and the "scientists" engaging in such have lost touch with what it means to be a scientist. Climatology has made a mockery of the scientific process, they've completely politicized it and they're censering counter opinion. As a society we shouldn't stand for such horrendous unethical behavior. Yet, most of our society welcomes it. It's a very slippery slope to travel down when society is willing to put aside scientific standards to follow people presenting their arguments in the form of politics and not actual science.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

99% of scientific groups do not agree with global warming alarmism. That is completely false.

No, that's completely true.

Claiming otherwise is completely false until you can present some evidence to the contrary.

Please show me some evidence to back up that assertion.

99% of scientific groups do agree with global warming alarmism. I can show you over 100 groups that agree with the alarmists. You can't show me a half dozen that disagree with the alarmists.

You keep asserting falsehoods as truth. IMO, you're engaging in the same type of approach to the subject that you accuse Gore of doing.

[Nonphixion]

Just for the record, Jajae, that video was heavily sensationalized and doesn't belong on any responsible science website.

Maybe a Hollywood "fake science & bias" website with the way this video is so cleverly edited.

Clearly it is made with the aims of trying to form your opinions FOR YOU before any actual data is presented in this junkscience.com video.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

Just for the record, Jajae, that video was heavily sensationalized and doesn't belong on any responsible science website.

Maybe a Hollywood "fake science & bias" website with the way this video is so cleverly edited.

Clearly it is made with the aims of trying to form your opinions FOR YOU before any actual data is presented in this junkscience.com video.

Al Gore's film wasn't heavily sensationalized and aims to try to form your opinions for you?

That's the whole point. This is what Al Gore and the sensationalists claim. That is their argument. The counter argument was shown. The facts that they brought up were true. It is found in the same data Al Gore was using. The counter opinion is biased to the skeptic point of view the same as Gore's side is biased to the alarmist point of view.

The data they are using is factual. The points they are making are valid. You're free to hold your preconceived opinions. I wasn't expecting this video to change anyone's mind. I just thought it was interesting that since the alarmists across the country refuse to debate the issues, someone has taken the two arguments and spliced them next to each other.

If you read the actual articles on global warming on junkscience.com you'll find they are full of scientific data and scientific analysis. They are long, but they are a very, very good read. And they make a much stronger scientific argument than Al Gore. It's well worth a read and uses scientific facts, not politics and emotion to inform readers rather than misconstrue the science and deceive.

JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts

Anyone who reads that will probably laugh the next time they hear Al Gore preaching about things like drowning polar bears. I know I do. When I watch Al Gore speak like he was in the first half of this video I can't help but sit back and think, wow he's got that graph so big so you can't see the truth. Or wow, he presented it in that way so viewers won't know this. And WTF mate, hurricanes? etc... Then you pop on any major news network and they're reciprocating similar claims saying it's in some way factual and there's no debate. It's completely false and a crock if you ask me. The sensationalist argument is also completely edited to show a biased picture of a half-truth and quite often an untruth. Yet people only attack the skeptics, that doesn't seem like a fair and rational way to approach the issue to me.

I'm really not trying to convince anyone to change their opinion on global warming, but what I do hope is that this thread will show there is rational debate on global warming and the commonly believed "facts" of global warming that are preached to the public aren't as solid and truthful as people think it is. The point of view we are preached to on global warming is sensationalism. They are not being forthright and honest. They are manipulating the data to tell the story they wish to tell and don't want you knowing that there are large glaring holes in the theory.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

No, that's completely true.

Claiming otherwise is completely false until you can present some evidence to the contrary.

Please show me some evidence to back up that assertion.

99% of scientific groups do agree with global warming alarmism. I can show you over 100 groups that agree with the alarmists. You can't show me a half dozen that disagree with the alarmists.

You keep asserting falsehoods as truth. IMO, you're engaging in the same type of approach to the subject that you accuse Gore of doing.

Most scientists agree carbon dioxide has an effect on temperature, however, alarmism is far from the consensus.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Most scientists agree carbon dioxide has an effect on temperature, however, alarmism is far from the consensus.

No, you're wrong, JaJae. Completely and utterly wrong, and you won't present any evidence to back up your claim, or even explain how you came to believe such a thing.

The threat of negative effects of human activity’s contribution to the current warming climate is real, and action should be taken to confront the challenge of mitigating those effects.

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. I would love to look at it and I would consider it carefully.

According to my own research, 96.73% of groups of experts agree: Climate change is real, human activity is contributing to it, and we should take action. That is a consensus. 3.26% of groups of experts are neutral, and a grand percentage of 0.00% agree with the deniers. That's right... zero. Again, if you persist on claiming otherwise, please provide me with some evidence.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Most groups fall somewhere between the skeptics and the alarmists.

That is just - not - true. Your above statement is utterly, completely, demonstrably untrue. If you have any evidence at all to back up the accuracy of your statement, please present it.

It begs the question: How in the world did you ever come to believe something like that? Just because you want to believe it? You couldn't have read it somewhere... if you did, please show me where! I'm really curious as to how you arrived at that belief, since I have been able to find absolutely nothing to support your statements.

[Thomas Crown]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

No, you're wrong, JaJae. Completely and utterly wrong, and you won't present any evidence to back up your claim, or even explain how you came to believe such a thing.

The threat of negative effects of human activity’s contribution to the current warming climate is real, and action should be taken to confront the challenge of mitigating those effects.

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. I would love to look at it and I would consider it carefully.

According to my own research, 96.73% of groups of experts agree: Climate change is real, human activity is contributing to it, and we should take action. That is a consensus. 3.26% of groups of experts are neutral, and a grand percentage of 0.00% agree with the deniers. That's right... zero. Again, if you persist on claiming otherwise, please provide me with some evidence.



That is just - not - true. Your above statement is utterly, completely, demonstrably untrue. If you have any evidence at all to back up the accuracy of your statement, please present it.

It begs the question: How in the world did you ever come to believe something like that? Just because you want to believe it? You couldn't have read it somewhere... if you did, please show me where! I'm really curious as to how you arrived at that belief, since I have been able to find absolutely nothing to support your statements.

I'll see your dozen and raise you 500.

Originally Posted by EarthTimes

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Climate change is a topic that needs very real debate. But that won't happen because the forum of scientific discussion has been replaced with public alarmism. This is a political tactic, nothing else. It is to Democrats what security is to Republicans, and both are a joke when it comes to handling said topics.

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:

Originally Posted by EarthTimes

Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."

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

[Scrum]

That's 500 scientists who have refuted at least one element of the current theory, not 500 who say the whole thing is a sham. It's important to point that out.


And lets consider the source for a moment (And apply any negative reputation to me for pointing this out), Avery is an agricultural economist and the Hudson Institute is a right-wing think tank.

"This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

This was said by Avery, not a climatologist. Should we ask a plumber to read an MRI scan?

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.

I agree and you are doing exactly that.