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
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.
I think your hopes are a bit too high, but I suppose anything is possible.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.
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
Absolutely. I was critical of things Gore said. There's plenty of things he has stretched.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, &
Gore, Monckton, Ball, are not the people you should look to for clarification on that.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
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?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.
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...
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.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.
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.)
Yeah, I'd sooner have Hausen explain the HPV to me or Tsien explain GFP to me than some politician. Like pols are trustworthy? lmaoThey 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?