Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by JL(SFC58,AFCB):
Really? Seems to me a very similar case could be made against the Al Gore DVD - graphs with unusual scales and strange cut off points etc.
Even if your statement is true about Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth (which is debatable), it doesn't justify the airing of The Great Global Warming Swindle, it means both shouldn't have been aired/released. |
| |
|
|
quote: Really? Seems to me a very similar case could be made against the Al Gore DVD - graphs with unusual scales and strange cut off points etc.
Please please please please please can people shut up about Al Gore! Is Al Gore to be the new hockey stick of the deniers? "Al Gore drives a big car, therefore global warming is a lie! Al Gore uses incandescent light bulbs therefore global warming is a lie!..." I've not seen his film. Quite a few others on this forum have not seen his film. However, the guys at realclimate have provided a review. It includes some criticisms but otherwise is complimentary about Gore's coverage of the science: www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/On the other hand, you'd need a programme about 6 hours long to cover the lies errors in the GGWS Swindle. Hamish should be sacked. |
| |
|
|
Well, I have seen the Gore DVD.
|
| |
|
|
I haven’t had a chance to watch swindle yet, but I have the impression that it may be guilty of many of the same tactics as AGW extremists.
On the other hand it’s disappointing that “believers” refuse to criticize Gore. He’s an enviro-hypocrite who’s enriched himself though fear mongering. He attacks the motives of anyone who disagrees with him. He exaggerated sea level rise by a factor of 20 and tried to blame Katrina on global warming. If you believe that Al has been fighting CO2 induced global warming since college, you probably also believe he invented the internet. I can respect a James Hansen or Ralph Nader, but Al Gore is shameless.
|
| |
|
|
skepticalyank:
Yes, this is what irritates me about this whole debate. I suppose the difficulty is that it has become politicised rather than remaining as science. Hence it all gets portrayed in very simplistic terms.
I remember one thread on another noticeboard - I think it was BBCs Points of View - where one poster and I were on opposite sides, but we felt a lot closer to each other than to many on our own sides. We ended up sympathising with each other on having to put with our own sides!
|
| |
|
|
quote: On the other hand it’s disappointing that “believers” refuse to criticize Gore.
I haven't seen the film and he's not my ex-next-president, so how can I criticise him. Those who do criticise him clearly only do because they fear the influence his film has, because by and large the criticisms focus on his personal life, which bear no relation to whether the science is correct or not. And often the criticisms just use denier lies to try and discredit the film. I found a transcript of the film - he only mentions Katrina twice in it, and the bit about sea-level rise sounds correct - I don't know whether the transcript is correct: www.hokeg.dyndns.org/AITruth.htmquote: Now I'm going to show you, recently released, the actual ocean temperature. Of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms. We have seen in the last couple of years, a lot of big hurricanes. Hurricanes Jean, Francis and Ivan were among them. In the same year we had that string of big hurricanes; we also set an all time record for tornadoes in the United States. Japan again didn't get as much attention in our news media, but they set an all time record for typhoons. The previous record was seven. Here are all ten of the ones they had in 2004. The science textbooks that have to be re-written because they say it is impossible to have a hurricane in the South Atlantic. It was the same year that the first one that ever hit Brazil. The summer of 2005 is one for the books. The first one was Emily that socked into Yucatan. Then Hurricane Dennis came along and it did a lot of damage, including to the oil industry. This is the largest oil platform in the world after Dennis went through. This one was driven into the bridge at Mobile. And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases, the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And you'll see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that Hurricane's eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there are no words to describe it.
|
| |
|
|
Steve, Katrina was only a cat 3 when it hit New Orleans. There's nothing exceptional about the storm that justifies linking it to global warming. The disaster was a combination of where it hit and poorly built levies. Blaming global warming is dishonest fearmongering.
|
| |
|
|
as far as i'm concerned Al Gore is just one of a number if not the fast majority of politicians that are jumping on the "global warming" band wagon, and who can blame them, if it means that they get more votes. It's all an environmental grave train keeping thousands of people in jobs.
|
| |
|
|
Oops, sorry, GRAVY not grave train
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by martin.walesuk:
Oops, sorry, GRAVY not grave train
No Martin, GRAVE Train is probably what you meant  |
| |
|
|
quote: Steve, Katrina was only a cat 3 when it hit New Orleans. There's nothing exceptional about the storm that justifies linking it to global warming. The disaster was a combination of where it hit and poorly built levies. Blaming global warming is dishonest fearmongering.
The science identifies an admittedly controversial potential for increased storm severity, and a strong likelihood for changing weather patterns. And the transcript quote identifies evidence suggesting that such weather changes are taking place, and identifies the risks caused by such storms or weather changes impacting a city that is not ready for it. In the context of the quote, the link between GW and Katrina is not stated. It is perhaps implied, and I guess if I saw the film, the images might imply it stronger. But to compare the film's arguable overstatement with the huge list of lies in the Swindle documentary seems on the face of it to be unfair. Just to repeat, all of the above is based on my reading of a transcript of the film that I do not know whether is correct or complete, I know very little about Gore and I do not "worship the Goracle"  |
| |
|
|
quote: as far as i'm concerned Al Gore is just one of a number if not the fast majority of politicians that are jumping on the "global warming" band wagon, and who can blame them, if it means that they get more votes. It's all an environmental grave train keeping thousands of people in jobs.
If politicians got more votes by "jumping on the bandwagon" they would have jumped on it over a decade ago after the first IPCC report. Is it true or not that Al Gore has been involved in promoting environmental policies for a long time? It didn't come across in my admittedly limited view of his presidential campaign suggesting that he didn't think it to be a vote-winner. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Steve_M:
If politicians got more votes by "jumping on the bandwagon" they would have jumped on it over a decade ago after the first IPCC report.
Steve, I think politicians generally respond to public opinion (and Rupert Murdoch!) |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Steve_M:
Is it true or not that Al Gore has been involved in promoting environmental policies for a long time? It didn't come across in my admittedly limited view of his presidential campaign suggesting that he didn't think it to be a vote-winner.
It's true that Al Gore has been one of the strongest advocates for the environment but he is also one of the biggest hypocrites. He demands sacrifices from others, but makes none himself. His claim of offsetting his own pollution by purchasing carbon offsets is a joke. He doesn't even pay for them himself. Global Investment Management purchases them for him. George Bush's home is far more environmentally friendly than Gore's. USA Today reports that Gore received over half a mil in royalty payments from a heavily polluting zinc mine. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-18-goremine_N.htmI can respect someone like Ralph Nader who practices what he preaches but Gore deserves only contempt. |
| |
|
|
Great -
so we don't have to worry about global warming any more because Al Gore has a big house and is accused of not making sacrifices.
All the world's scientists can pack up and go home - and leave Exxon to pollute as much as it wants - because Al Gore has 'jumped on the bandwagon'.
Fantastic-
All we have to do is to get Al to 'jump on the bandwagon' of global poverty, Iran's nuclear weapons and, and Aids and 'Hey Presto' - all those problems will be instantly solved too.
Leave it out - anyone who has to argue on those lines is clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Monbiot's exchange with Channel 4 shows that the Durkin had to resort to outright deception to make an 'argument'.
|
| |
|
|
I watched part of Al Gore's video last night and it was so boring....... the man does not have great presenting skills..... perhaps it is a good thing he didn't win the presidency! I couldn't help feeling that his involvement in the GW debate is now his way of 'making himself known'.
As for the actual GW debate I feel I belong with the sceptics as over millions of years there has always been variations in the weather....even when there were no people around......
|
| |
|
|
Bingo, I'm all for reducing pollution(let's start replacing coal with nuclear)and I'm willing to concede that CO2. I'm just disgusted with the enviro-hypocrits who are living the high energy life while profiting by pushing schemes worthless schemes like carbon offsets. (I loved the web site where you can buy and sell offsets for sexual infidelity.) Good grief. Babs Streisand suggests we do away with dryers and go back to clotheslines. I can just picture Babs out Brolin's boxers on the line. The Kennedy's tried to shut down a wind farm off Martha's Vineyard because it might interfere with their view. George Bush's Texas home is more enviro friendly than any of the homes of the GW advocates. Check it out. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/is_george_bush.php |
| |
|
|
Well Skeptical yank - you may well be disgusted by 'enviro-hypocrites' but I'm afraid that your disgust doesn't change the scientific realities.
If you have any disgust less perhaps you should save some for Exxon who have acted in exactly the same way that tobacco companies did when they knew their products caused cancer. That is to say they paid third parties to spread 'skepticism' about the scientific evidence; and paid politicians to delay effective action against the problem.
Once you've stopped spending your time being disgusted, perhaps you'd like to invest some energy in helping to raise awareness of the problem, and finding solutions??
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by BingoBongo:
Well Skeptical yank - you may well be disgusted by 'enviro-hypocrites' but I'm afraid that your disgust doesn't change the scientific realities.
If you have any disgust less perhaps you should save some for Exxon who have acted in exactly the same way that tobacco companies did when they knew their products caused cancer. That is to say they paid third parties to spread 'skepticism' about the scientific evidence; and paid politicians to delay effective action against the problem.
Once you've stopped spending your time being disgusted, perhaps you'd like to invest some energy in helping to raise awareness of the problem, and finding solutions??
Can we stop the needless slurs on energy companies please. And also get off the moral horses as it doesn't benefit any rational discussion of the issues at hand. As for TGGWS, well it was a personal polemic in the same way that George gives a polemic on climate change. George isn't always the most careful with facts either so this strikes me as throwing stones in a greenhouse... |
| |
|
|
quote: Can we stop the needless slurs on energy companies please. And also get off the moral horses as it doesn't benefit any rational discussion of the issues at hand.
It is the lies and misrepresentations from the organisations funded by ExxonMobil rather than the funding source itself that bothers me. I thought the Vanity Fair piece posted in another thread described a good example, though I have many others: www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/05/skeptic200705?currentPage=1quote: As for TGGWS, well it was a personal polemic in the same way that George gives a polemic on climate change. George isn't always the most careful with facts either so this strikes me as throwing stones in a greenhouse...
Do you mean Al Gore? At least it was a polemic with a scientific basis (I'm still waiting for a valid rebuttal, and I still haven't seen it!). |
| |
|
|
LKW,
TGGWS was billed in the adverts, not as a polemic, but as "the most important documentary on global warming that you'll see". Polemics shouldn't go round masquerading as science documentaries.
As for George Monbiot, if he's made any factual errors point to them. As for Al Gore and 'An Inconvenient Truth', point to the errors that he makes. The information in that documentary is supported by the scientific literature. Beyond biased polemics from the usual industry funded sources I haven't seen any credible substantive criticism of that documentary. In fact the scientists I have seen comment commend it for being scientifically accurate.
|
| |
| |
