October 14, 200719 yr Since Gore exagerated some of the facts, leads me to believe all of his facts could be tainted. I have a hard time trusting someone once they have lied or mislead me. Understandable. I sure hope you're not a dubya fan though...
October 14, 200719 yr Is the proof not already out there? Just because Gore exagerates things does not invalidate the other facts that are not disputed.Show it to me, I sure haven't seen it.
October 14, 200719 yr Understandable. I sure hope you're not a dubya fan though...Now who's sounding jaded?
October 14, 200719 yr Understandable. I sure hope you're not a dubya fan though... I don't know if you would call me a fan or not, but in 2000 I consided Bush a better choice that Gore, and again over Kerry in 2004. I really think that in both elections there could have been better choices, but they decided not to run.
October 14, 200719 yr Now who's sounding jaded? You're right, he has never mislead the country... Considering the fact that I would have voted for Bush over Kerry, that doesn't sound to jaded to me... I would have voted for Gore on the other hand.
October 14, 200719 yr Umm, top twenty my aunt fanny. I don't just believe whatever, I've read the studies from actual climatologists and side with them. Can you dispute what the Brits have claimed? Yes, for instance In an article by the Associated Press dated 10/13/07 states A five-nation research team reports that global emissions of carbon dioxide, the biggest greenhouse gas, are increasing at a rate three times faster than in the 1990s. U.S. government scientists say this summer's shrinkage of the Arctic ice cap was the greatest on record. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Year-of-Climate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin By the way you still didn't answer about why the British government is a leading authority in global warming? Can you dispute U.S. government scientists?
October 14, 200719 yr Yes, for instance In an article by the Associated Press dated 10/13/07 states A five-nation research team reports that global emissions of carbon dioxide, the biggest greenhouse gas, are increasing at a rate three times faster than in the 1990s. U.S. government scientists say this summer's shrinkage of the Arctic ice cap was the greatest on record. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Year-of-Climate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin By the way you still didn't answer about why the British government is a leading authority in global warming? Can you dispute U.S. government scientists? Yes, I have man times and it isn't the British Govt., it's their EXPERT.
October 14, 200719 yr You're right, he has never mislead the country... Considering the fact that I would have voted for Bush over Kerry, that doesn't sound to jaded to me... I would have voted for Gore on the other hand. I wouldn't be willing to admit that, is that therapy?
October 15, 200719 yr Another top climatologist ridicules Gore and his "documentary." Gore gets a cold shoulder Steve Lytte October 14, 2007 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". Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth. His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming. "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."
October 15, 200719 yr Another top climatologist ridicules Gore and his "documentary." It seems Dr William Gray has a history of ridiculing global warming. 26 April 2006 Gray and Muddy Thinking about Global Warming Anybody who has followed press reporting on global warming, and particularly on its effects on hurricanes, has surely encountered various contrarian pronouncements by William Gray, of Colorado State University. A meeting paper that Gray provided in advance of the 2006 27th Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology (taking place this week in Monterey California, and covered here by CNN), provides an illuminating window into Gray's thinking on the subject. Our discussion is not a point-by-point rebuttal of Gray's claims; there is far more wrong with the paper than we have the patience to detail. Gray will have plenty of opportunities to hear more about the work's shortcomings if it is ever subjected to the rigors of peer review. Here we will only highlight a few key points which illustrate the fundamental misconceptions on the physics of climate that underlie most of Gray's pronouncements on climate change and its causes. The Wall Street Journal has insinuated that there is some ageism involved in the reaction to Gray's work ("Hurricane debate shatters civility of weather science," by Valerie Bauerlein, Feb.2, 2006). The problem is not Gray's age — we all revered Henry Stommel who did some of his finest work in his seventies. The problem is Gray's failure to adapt to a modern era of meteorology, which demands hypotheses soundly grounded in quantitative and consistent physical formulations, not seat-of-the-pants flying. The WSJ also made much of the withdrawal of an invitation for Gray to join a debate on hurricane trends at an Atlanta tropical meteorology conference. We can't speak for the organizers, but we find it easy to believe that their decision was guided more by the invalidity of Gray's scientific reasoning than by any political or personal considerations. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
October 15, 200719 yr ^ Ouch. I wonder what Mr. Gray bought with his check from ExxonMobil.Do you have idea who funds Dr. Michael Mann, the most well known of the contributors to RealClimate.org? Has Dr. Gray received as much money from Exxon in his lifetime as Al Gore receives for delivering a single 75-minute long global warming presentation? Science is not about consensus and it is certainly not about squelching alternate theories by attacking the character of the proponents of those theories. Despite the claims Chicken Little crowd, global warming is not "settled science." Society is not well served when politicians and their supporters take up unproven scientific theories as political causes, as if public opinion constitutes proof. Gore has no real scientific credentials in this area, and the Nobel Committee members are fools for parting with the prize money. This world is full of real heroes fighting for peace, but Al Gore is not one of them.
October 15, 200719 yr ^ Nice! :thumb: RealClimate.org? Come on, kygirl. You can surely do better than that.
October 15, 200719 yr We should go back and give retro Nobel Prizes for fictional Science. I think Dustin Hoffman should have gotten one in 1995 for warning the world about potential outbreaks of deadly airborne viruses in the movie Outbreak. Tommy Lee Jones (Al Gores Harvard roomate) should also get one for warning the world about volcanoes breaking out in Los Angeles in 1997's Volcano. Bruce Willis should get one for saving the world from killer asteroids in 1998's Armageddon... The sad thing is is that all these scenarios are fictional accounts of actual hazards that have a basis in reality. Volcanoes, Outbreaks of Disease, and Volcanoes have all at one time or the other killed thousands of people... Unfortunately, Al Gore deserves a Nobel for Science about as much as Matthew Broderick does for warning the world of impending radioactive lizard attacks as in 1999's Godzilla...
October 15, 200719 yr Do you have idea who funds Dr. Michael Mann, the most well known of the contributors to RealClimate.org? Has Dr. Gray received as much money from Exxon in his lifetime as Al Gore receives for delivering a single 75-minute long global warming presentation? Science is not about consensus and it is certainly not about squelching alternate theories by attacking the character of the proponents of those theories. Despite the claims Chicken Little crowd, global warming is not "settled science." Society is not well served when politicians and their supporters take up unproven scientific theories as political causes, as if public opinion constitutes proof. Gore has no real scientific credentials in this area, and the Nobel Committee members are fools for parting with the prize money. This world is full of real heroes fighting for peace, but Al Gore is not one of them. WOW! Can you say that with a straight face after all of the comments on Al Gore in this thread? There are things in science that can be measured and cause established. There are other things where things can be measured and science used to develop a theory of causation. Global warming is in the second category. And even within the group that has developed the man induced global warming theories tthere is variation as to rate and magnatude of change. It seems to me that prudent planning requires that we admit to the possibility of man induced change and then plan for how to react to it. Even if the oceans rise 20 feet over the next 100 years that will not be proof of man induced global warming. Proof would require controlled experiments where all factors were held constant and only the greenhouse gases were varied. That won't happen, so we'll never have "proof", only a consensus based on evidence.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.