Al Gore vs. 7 Climate Scientists Who Say CO2 Does Not Cause Climate Change

By Saturday March 21, 2009

Sorry, but Al Gore sounds like he’s a flabbergasted 12-year-old trying to sound smart.



113 Comments
  1. Guyver says:
    3/24/2009 at 10:19 am

    Fusion,

    Also if you read the “wakypedia” article you would realize it was indeed a Wikipedia article and not the “wakipedia” site your referring to. The Inq has a tendency to do name calling in which this was the case.

    Reply
  2. Mr. Fusion says:
    3/24/2009 at 10:37 am

    100, guyver,

    Heck you even said about Wikipedia:

    “I do know NOT to trust anything concerning a living person or current political controversy.”

    Please leave the reference so I can see the context and rest of the section.

    He’s very knowledgeable about the IPCC’s problems and political leanings.

    So when someone writes under the by line VIEWPOINT it really isn’t opinion. He did write:

    Don’t misunderstand me.

    Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase … This increase will have some climate impact through CO2′s radiation properties.

    Reply
  3. Guyver says:
    3/24/2009 at 11:17 am

    From Part 2: Sarah Palin: glowing make-over at Wikipedia: http://tinyurl.com/cf6u34

    And the full quote that you’re chopping up is: “Don’t misunderstand me.

    Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase due to the undisputed benefits that carbon-based energy brings to humanity. This increase will have SOME climate impact through CO2′s radiation properties.

    However, FUNDAMENTAL knowledge is MEAGRE here, and our own research indicates that alarming changes in the key observations are NOT occurring.”

    And although Professor Christy is writing a viewpoint piece, he’s probably much more well informed about the IPCC’s issues than you or I. His article was to explain why the IPCC isn’t as objective as you would like them to be.

    Professor Christy probably best sums it up about Science here: “The best advice regarding scientific knowledge, which certainly applies to climate, came to me from Mr Mallory, my high school physics teacher.

    He proposed that we should always begin our scientific pronouncements with this statement: “At our present level of ignorance, we think we know…” ”

    The key thing here is Professor Christy and the other links I provided are people from WITHIN the IPCC who left because ulterior motives of the IPCC.

    There are legitimate grievances against Wikipedia and the IPCC IMHO, but there are those who are predisposed to ignore those grievances because it’s not compatible with their agendas.

    I want to see something black and white. I want a smoking gun. I do not care for a liberal’s “common-sense” interpretation of what they believe must be happening, nor do I trust the conclusions of an organization whose behavior seems to be more inclined to advance an agenda rather than acknowledge and objectively address any and all flaws with their analysis or approach.

    Reply
  4. Mr. Fusion says:
    3/24/2009 at 1:31 pm

    Guyver,

    There are legitimate grievances against Wikipedia and the IPCC IMHO, but there are those who are predisposed to ignore those grievances because it’s not compatible with their agendas.

    If you don’t like Wikipedia then fine. Show us something better. Because every other source you dare think up also has its own problems. You can’t just say that because there have been a few pages out of millions in Wikipedia (or whatever number they have) the entire site is wrong. Damn, would you shut down the Courts because they have had some cases overturned? Would you pull every car and truck off the road because a few are defective?

    Those denying Climate Change will never be satisfied that it is an actuality until they see the ocean lapping at their doorstep. And then they will start building big boats to put two of every species on.

    Reply
  5. bobbo says:
    3/24/2009 at 1:36 pm

    Unless you “really KNOW” is it right to argue forcefully for or against a proposition?

    Shouldn’t we all be a whole lot more agnostic on most issues?

    Nothing wrong with being certain that something is logically incoherent or morally repugnant. That still allows disagreement on most issues. But when the issue is “scientific” what is it you are actually bringing to the discussion besides ego?

    Scientific–global warming.
    Political–what to do about it.

    How do you decide when to “submit” to science and when to be ignorant?

    Reply
  6. Guyver says:
    3/25/2009 at 7:25 am

    Fusion,

    Excuse me while I snicker as I note you skirting the fact that you’ve contradicted yourself on Wikipedia’s credibility on political issues. LOL

    Now as for providing you with better sources than Wikipedia, I’m all ears too. What I can tell you is WHAT I don’t think is credible and my reasons why.

    I take people like Professor Christy more credible because he’s not only a scientist, but he’s one where the IPCC has used his work. He knows their politics and their short comings. His analysis of their problems and conclusions should be looked at as a peer review and not that he’s some sort of denier. But to humor your label, the IPCC really should do a third party peer review by the “denier” scientists. If it stands up to that sort of scrutiny, then this would be much closer to an open and shut case. But they don’t.

    Another thing, “Climate Change” and “Man-Made Climate Change” are two totally different things. You talk as if the two are synonymous. They’re not.

    Man-Made Climate Change is not a foregone scientific conclusion. There is no proof that CO2 is responsible for climate change. Nor that man-made CO2 is significant. Heck this Global Warming fiasco is almost as bad as when the Europeans thought the Black Plague was caused by cats. People are taking correlations and declaring them to be causal. That’s not science. At best it’s a hasty conclusion.

    Bobbo,

    If science is where you use a supercomputer to model an open system as a closed system and the model is designed on the assumption that CO2 is the driving force, then you and I have two different perspectives on science. Computer simulation models are not experiments. They’re only as good as our weakest link…. Our assumptions.

    Here’s a good write up IMHO: http://tinyurl.com/362mn9

    I have no problem with submitting to science so long as the “scientific” conclusions are truly scientific and not based off of political agendas, assumptions, and self-serving simulations.

    Pushing the IPCC and Wikipedia as the authoritative source on Global Warming even though there are some serious issues with their credibility is more “faith-based” than it has to do with the scientific method. Calling people “deniers” because they’re pointing out holes in the “foregone conclusions” of man-made global warming is hardly scientific and is pretty closed-minded.

    As you said in post #77, “Read the studies and wait longer. Science has no time requirement.”

    I can wait…. Can you? Or have you already determined that the data collected proves that man-made global warming is a foregone conclusion?

    Reply
  7. bobbo says:
    3/25/2009 at 7:34 am

    #106–Guyver==”I can wait…. Can you? Or have you already determined that the data collected proves that man-made global warming is a foregone conclusion?” /// Didn’t I say above that I’m agnostic? Didn’t I say that one should “KNOW” before taking strong stands? I agree that modeling is not proof and that the IPCC as being formed expressly for the purpose of informing the governments of the world of the dangers of global warming is BIASED by definition.

    I have NEVER said I believe in GW or AGW or AGCC or anything of the sort. As close as I have ever gotten is “the best evidence” and confirmation of my ignorance.

    I do enjoy seeing the errors in logic/proof that both sides make in their arguments and enjoy my own errors on the fence being pointed out as well.

    The foregone conclusion I do see is carbon pollution thats killing the ocean. Bound up and inextricable, but different.

    Reply
  8. Guyver says:
    3/25/2009 at 7:44 am

    PDFs linke in post # 106:

    Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts: http://tinyurl.com/yulv43

    Newsweek article talking about Scientists in 1975 fearing global cooling: http://tinyurl.com/cfpzks

    NY Times showing how Computer Models failed to predict the risks leading up to our economic crisis: http://tinyurl.com/446×83

    Reply
  9. Guyver says:
    3/25/2009 at 7:46 am

    107, My apologies. You did say you were agnostic, but sometimes it can be hard to discern genuine comments from sarcastic ones. :)

    Regardless the link in post #106 is worth checking out.

    Reply
  10. Wretched Gnu says:
    3/27/2009 at 5:57 pm

    Well! That’s 7 scientists of the 1% of climate scientists who agree with John.

    Now, surely, John will be showing us testimony from the *thousands* of climate scientists (99% of the total) who disagree…

    Reply
  11. Flu-Bird says:
    5/22/2009 at 1:53 pm

    CO2 is ecentiual for plantlife becuase plants use it to manaifacture all that they need to survive AND AL GORE IS THE #1 PRODUCER OF HOT AIR

    Reply
  12. Rob Rasner says:
    3/6/2011 at 6:39 am

    Greetings! I’ve been following your blog for some time now and finally acquired the bravery to go ahead and provide you with a shout out from Dallas Texas! Simply wanted to tell you continue your great work

    Reply
  13. Ivory csl says:
    3/24/2011 at 4:03 am

    An old racetrack joke reminds you that your program contains all the winners’ names. I stare at my typewriter keys with the same thought.

    Reply

« Older Comments

Leave a Response


Bad Behavior has blocked 26295 access attempts in the last 7 days.