Al Gore Answers Questions (almost)!!!

[Ron in Regina]

YouTube - Daring to Question Al Gore

 

[EagleSmack]

Al Gore does not like to answer questions and that is for sure.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Polar bears? Censorship? Al Gore, Phelim McAleer Joust at Enviro Journalism Conference // Current

I've been waiting a long time to see Al Gore debate anyone on Climate Warming/Cooling/Changing.
I thought the wait was over. I guessed wrong.

 

[Ron in Regina]

I'd LOVE to see Al Gore debate Lord Christopher Moncton, & it ALMOST
happened last year...but then it didn't. It would have been interesting though.

Part#1
YouTube - 35 Inconvenient Truths part 1

Part#2
YouTube - 35 Inconvenient Truths part 2

Oh well....

 

[Tonington]

I'm curious why you would want to see Gore debate this topic Ron. Debate as would come from that exchange would be filled with rhetoric. Is that a relevant technique amongst scientific communications? Not to my knowledge.

I'd like to note that Phelim's claims in his documentary (trailer) have been criticised as well. Off to lab now. More later

 

[AnnaG]

I think most people realize that Gore's "facts" haven't been supported and his motives were grandstanding and profit.
I have no problem with Gore's movie being shown to kids as media not to take seriously, or media showing unscientific bent.

 

[Ron in Regina]

I'm curious why you would want to see Gore debate this topic Ron. Debate as would come from that exchange would be filled with rhetoric. Is that a relevant technique amongst scientific communications? Not to my knowledge.

I'd like to note that Phelim's claims in his documentary (trailer) have been criticised as well. Off to lab now. More later

Al Gore is the "Poster Boy" for one side of an argument. He, for
all intents & purposes, is the voice for one side of an argument.

I think BOTH sides of the argument should be open to criticism,
publicly, in a televised debate, so that many questions that I have
are answered directly to eliminate much of the conflicting B.S. on
both sides.

Take Gore and four experts vs Moncton & Ball and a few others
that have the courage to buck the tide of what seems to be the
official government/financial opinion that policies will be based
on.

Yes, I have read through your links in the past, & ScottFree's, &
have done much reading on my own, and in my lowly opinion,
the argument isn't settled by any means. I would like clarification
in such a manner (open but structured debate) where cherry-picked
data will be pointed out for what it is, on both sides, and a clear
picture will emerge without so much polarized conflicting opinion.

I'm not a Scientist and don't claim to be, but I am a taxpayer and
will be affected (and am already) by this argument. I would like
this boiled down with the B.S. on both sides removed so that the
truth is left to be dealt with however it needs to be. That's why I
want to see Al Gore in debate on this. I just want to know I'm not
being hoodwinked.

 

[Ron in Regina]

I think most people realize that Gore's "facts" haven't been supported and his motives were grandstanding and profit.
I have no problem with Gore's movie being shown to kids as media not to take seriously, or media showing unscientific bent.

Source: Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge | Environment | The Guardian

"The judge ruled that the film can still be shown in schools, as part of a climate
change resources pack, but only if it is accompanied by fresh guidance notes to
balance Mr Gore's "one-sided" views. The "apocalyptic vision" presented in the film
was not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change, he said.

The judge also said it might be necessary for the Department of Children, Schools
and Families to make clear to teachers some of Mr Gore's views were not
supported or promoted by the government, and there was "a view to the contrary"."

I'm hoping that Al Gore in a debate will boil down to an impartial analysis of
the science of climate change.

 

[AnnaG]

Source: Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge | Environment | The Guardian

"The judge ruled that the film can still be shown in schools, as part of a climate
change resources pack, but only if it is accompanied by fresh guidance notes to
balance Mr Gore's "one-sided" views. The "apocalyptic vision" presented in the film
was not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change, he said.

The judge also said it might be necessary for the Department of Children, Schools
and Families to make clear to teachers some of Mr Gore's views were not
supported or promoted by the government, and there was "a view to the contrary"."

I'm hoping that Al Gore in a debate will boil down to an impartial analysis of
the science of climate change.

I think your hopes are a bit too high, but I suppose anything is possible.

 

[jambo101]

delete

 

[Tonington]

Al Gore is the "Poster Boy" for one side of an argument. He, for
all intents & purposes, is the voice for one side of an argument.

He's THE voice that some people hear. Only if you limit yourself to the muck in the popular media. That's half of the problem to begin with.

The media likes to portray both sides of the debate equally (though not always), when they are disproportionate. Very few people believe that carbon dioxide for example, is not a greenhouse gas. But if you have one crank on there who believes that, and one who doesn't, then it gives the impression that there is a healthy debate on that topic, when in fact there is not.

I think BOTH sides of the argument should be open to criticism

publicly, in a televised debate, so that many questions that I have
are answered directly to eliminate much of the conflicting B.S. on
both sides.

Absolutely. I was critical of things Gore said. There's plenty of things he has stretched.

Want to know the difference? He has removed those instances from his presentations when notified of them. Martin Durkin made numerous versions of his Global Warming Swindle, and choose to continue putting false information in his documentary, even after it was made known to him.

Take Gore and four experts vs Moncton & Ball and a few others
that have the courage to buck the tide of what seems to be the
official government/financial opinion that policies will be based
on.

This has been tried before, for example here:
YouTube - Global Warming Debate - Introduction, part 1 of 10

Lay audiences are not nuanced enough to know the difference between good rhetoric and bad science. Just like most lay audience don't know the difference between a good financial statement, and "creative" accounting.

Yes, I have read through your links in the past, & ScottFree's, &

have done much reading on my own, and in my lowly opinion,
the argument isn't settled by any means. I would like clarification
in such a manner (open but structured debate) where cherry-picked
data will be pointed out for what it is, on both sides, and a clear
picture will emerge without so much polarized conflicting opinion.

Gore, Monckton, Ball, are not the people you should look to for clarification on that.

I'm not a Scientist and don't claim to be, but I am a taxpayer and

will be affected (and am already) by this argument. I would like
this boiled down with the B.S. on both sides removed so that the
truth is left to be dealt with however it needs to be. That's why I
want to see Al Gore in debate on this. I just want to know I'm not
being hoodwinked.

If Al Gore has had BS in his documentaries in the past, as have Ball and Monckton, why on Earth would you want them to be the people producing the distilled products?

I can't wrap my head around that.

 

[Tonington]

Sorry about the format...I didn't put those double block quotes in, they appeared somehow. Editing doesn't seem to get rid of them...

 

[Ron in Regina]

As far as this debate goes, I am just a layman, and always will be. I will also
always be a taxpayer and a consumer of...well...whatever I have to consume.

Like it or not....when the U.S. House Energy & Commerce Meeting called on
someone to explain AGW...it was Al Gore. Like it or not...he IS the Poster Boy.


When I'm told that I need to open up my pockets further, but that I and most
others are just to dumb to understand why, but to just shut up and pay because
it's in my/our best interests....well....that doesn't sit well. Yes, I am just a normal
average guy, and there are millions and millions of us, and I would like to see
an impartial boiled down summary of this AGW thing where, as in a debate, if
B.S. is rolled out...it can be confronted immediately and either backed up or
dismissed....and that would apply to both sides of the issue. I doubt very much
that I'm the only one wishing for this to happen.

The closest I seem to have found to impartial is Daniel Botkin. He doesn't seem
to be try'n to sell me something....but who knows. About Dan | Daniel B. Botkin

 

[Tonington]

They called numerous witnesses, not just Al Gore. Jim Hansen has testified before Congress multiple times on the subject. His projections from the early 80's are seminal, and have correctly projected the temperature rise to date.

I'm saying there are better people than Gore to communicate what you're after. He has star power, no doubt about that; that really shouldn't influence anyone's decisions though.

By the way, who tells you you're dumb?

 

[Ron in Regina]

They called numerous witnesses, not just Al Gore. Jim Hansen has testified before Congress multiple times on the subject. His projections from the early 80's are seminal, and have correctly projected the temperature rise to date.

I'm saying there are better people than Gore to communicate what you're after. He has star power, no doubt about that; that really shouldn't influence anyone's decisions though.

By the way, who tells you you're dumb?[/quote]



Just stating that I'm part of the unwashed Masses that will fund this....whatever.
I want to know that, if I'm going to have something rammed down my throat, that
is isn't just a money sucking scheme to drain the general public further as some
monstrous doonboddle the future historians will just giggle about as they look
back on it....like the Earth once commonly believed to be flat, etc...

 

[Tonington]

Everyone on this website is part of the unwashed masses that are impacted by any possible program...

You should stick to reading people like Botkin, or John Cook's great website:
Skeptical Science: Examining Global Warming Skepticism
He's a former physicist who funds his own website, and doesn't work in Academia. That's as far away from any possible money grubbing motive you can get.

Forget about Gore. You already know what his message is. Hearing it multiple times won't give you the clarity you're looking for.

 

[Walter]

Jim Hansen has testified before Congress multiple times on the subject. His projections from the early 80's are seminal, and have correctly projected the temperature rise to date.

Here is Hansen's 1988 prediction if CO2 emissions remained at 1988 levels compared to actual temperature. CO2 emissions have actually increased since '88 but the temp increase isn't following the prediction.

 

[Kakato]

Some of you might remember the environmental quotes I posted from Paul Elrich and other alarmists from back in th 70's.
Well,the guys still going and he was wrong last time(were still here) and now his BS has surfaced again.:roll:

This is the kind of crap that will eventually hurt the people doing the real data crunching and predictions.

CZAR WARS
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+2]Holdren: Ice age will kill 1 billion[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+1]Obama's science chief blames man-made carbon emissions[/SIZE][/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]Posted: October 09, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

[/SIZE]

[FONT=Palatino, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times, serif]By Jerome R. Corsi[/FONT]
[SIZE=-1]© 2009 WorldNetDaily [/SIZE]

John Holdren

White House science czar John Holdren has predicted 1 billion people will die in "carbon-dioxide induced famines" in a coming new ice age by 2020.
As WND previously reported, Holdren predicted in a 1971 textbook co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul Ehrlich that global over-population was heading the Earth to a new ice age unless the government mandated urgent measures to control population, including the possibility of involuntary birth control measures such as forced sterilization.
Holdren's prediction that 1 billion people would die from a global cooling "eco-disaster" was announced in Ehrlich's 1986 book "The Machinery of Nature."
Holdren based his prediction on a theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide would produce a climate catastrophe in which global warming would cause global cooling with a consequent reduction in agricultural production resulting in widespread disaster.
On pages 273-274 of "The Machinery of Nature," Ehrlich explained Holdren's theory by arguing "some localities will probably become colder as the warmer atmosphere drives the climactic engine faster, causing streams of frigid air to move more rapidly away from the poles." (Emphasis in original text.)

 

[jambo101]

Maybe Al Gores stance on global warming and what we should do about it may be all BS the end result of following his guidelines and reducing polution we end up with a cleaner Earth,if we follow his detractors guidelines and do nothing and Al's predictions turn out to be right consequences could be dire.I'm erring on the side of caution.

 

[AnnaG]

They called numerous witnesses, not just Al Gore. Jim Hansen has testified before Congress multiple times on the subject. His projections from the early 80's are seminal, and have correctly projected the temperature rise to date.

I'm saying there are better people than Gore to communicate what you're after. He has star power, no doubt about that; that really shouldn't influence anyone's decisions though.

By the way, who tells you you're dumb?

Yeah, I'd sooner have Hausen explain the HPV to me or Tsien explain GFP to me than some politician. Like pols are trustworthy? lmao