Al Gore blames recent storm on global warming

.

Despite having no facts to back it up and a large amount of evidence that would counter his claim.

No facts, large amount of evidence, it all depends on your point of view really doesn't it. Either you agree, or you disagree. That 'large amount of evidence' to you is just 'other opinions' to others.

Mark

Gore's case has been weakening and a lot of what he claims has been shown to be either completely wrong or vastly exaggerated.


Not just opinion, fact.

Your 'Fact' is just an opinion, like anything else.

Much of what Gore has claimed has been shown to be untrue or exaggerated.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

No mention of a "film" in this discussion yet. As usual, you're digressing.

Kees

you would know that Gore made a film (and wrote a book) containing his global warming claims. I am not digressing. It is directly relevant.

this thread is about (some storm last week) in that movie? I don't think so. So why mention it?

Kees

Gore has a history of making certain claims. His current nonsense is consistent (to use his term) with his past nonsense. Sheeesh!

I hate those propaganda movies.

Never read the book either, by the way.

Kees

Provide a link, QED. I can play that too;

Evidence for Global Warming

UNFCC Current evidence for climate change

Scientific Opinion on climate change

Statements by concurring organisations

Climate change: The evidence strengthens, (again).

Anyone can play the links game. I have 15,700,000 more where they came from.

Mark

Gore's claims to be faulty?

are you unaware of the flaws in the global warming theory? Are you aware that many scientists have no changed their stance on it?

Do you really think Gore's claim that last week's weather can be attributed to global warming can be taken as a fact?

It's new to me that courts are having an opinion about a scientific claim being true or false.
Let's see: evolution or creation, does God exist, is the earth round, is the earth the center of the universe, is global warming man-made?

Kees

I provided the link already.

The link is only talking about 'partisan political views' at public schools. Either section 406 or 407 of the 1996 law.

- Do you happen to know which of 2 sections was considered to be violated by showing the film? Or maybe both?
- And do happen to have (a link to) the full text of the relevant section(s)?

For the moment it only seems to show that certain things politician say can be considered as 'partisan'. That's no surprise to me. Even some members sometimes are more or less partisan.

Kees

What? That's NOT what it says.

a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods.

Read it.

You can hunt for those links yourself. I won't spoon feed you.

For the moment it only seems to show that certain things politician say can be considered as 'partisan'.


Incorrect. It shows that certain things Gore said were factually wrong.

I only read the first 2 pages, indeed. It may have continued, indeed.

Now the questions:
1. How many of these 'material falsehoods' were known widely enough to be false - when he made that film in 2006 - to justify a claim about him being deliberately misleading? Or - on the contrary - did he make a accurate enough representation of what then (and maybe still) was considered true by the scientific majority?

2. How many true facts were in that film (and book)? 90% or so? A mere 11 errors in a whole book isn't that much, given the uncertainty in climate models and theory.

Kees

it isn't relevant if actual real facts were mixed in with his falsehoods. It's not like he made a few insignificant boo-boos. The fact that there were many is enough. And he continually insists the "science is settled" and that there is no room for discussion. Demonizing skeptics is part of his schtick.

The sceptics demonize him (this discussion is one of the many proving that). And he demonizes the sceptics. Can continue forever, until it's proven beyond any doubt that one of the two is wrong.

Kees

because what he is doing will eventually cost us billions and affect the economy adversely.

is here;
http://newparty.co.uk/UserFiles/File/dimmocktranscript.pdf

It's a PDF file, a very large PDF file, 842MB.

The court has not made it's final decision yet but the Government has agreed "that and we will put a news item on TeacherNet tomorrow saying that the Secretary of State recommends that if any schools are planning to show the film that they do so in accordance with the new revised guidance".

Mark

Seems like Al Gore's film was not the only one to receive criticism.

The Great Global Warming Swindle is a documentary film that argues against the scientific consensus that global warming is "very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations".[1] It has been described by both its original broadcaster Channel 4 and the British regulator Ofcom as "a polemic".[2]

"Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and individual scientists (including two of the film's contributors)

"The film's critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"

"The British broadcasting regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), received 265 complaints about the programme, one of which was a 176-page detailed complaint co-authored by a group of scientists.[14][15] Ofcom ruled on 21 July 2008 that the programme had unfairly treated Sir David King, the IPCC and Professor Carl Wunsch. Ofcom also found that part 5 of the programme (the 'political' part) had breached several parts of the Broadcasting Code regarding impartiality".

Criticism from two scientists featured in the programme

Carl Wunsch

Carl Wunsch, professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT, is featured in the Channel 4 version of the programme. Afterwards he said that he was "completely misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to be interviewed.[7][30] He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two.",[31] and he lodged a complaint with Ofcom. He particularly objected to how his interview material was used.

Eigil Friis-Christensen

Eigil Friis-Christensen's research was used to support claims about the influence of solar activity on climate, both in the programme and Durkin's subsequent defence of it. Friis-Christensen, with environmental Research Fellow Nathan Rive, criticised the way the solar data were used:

"We have concerns regarding the use of a graph featured in the documentary titled ?Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years?. Firstly, we have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless. Secondly, although the narrator commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates, it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming."[

In response to a question from The Independent as to whether the programme was scientifically accurate, Friis-Christensen said: "No, I think several points were not explained in the way that I, as a scientist, would have explained them ... it is obvious it's not accurate."

Following Eigil Friis-Christensen's criticism of the ?Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years? graph used in the programme (for perfectly matching the lines in the 100 years 1610-1710 where data did not in fact exist in the original), Durkin emailed Friis-Christensen to thank him for highlighting the error: "it is an annoying mistake which all of us missed and is being fixed for all future transmissions of the film. It doesn't alter our argument

?The Great Global Warming Swindle? is itself a Fraud and a Swindle.

"?The Great Global Warming Swindle? (DVD/video/movie) is a pseudo-documentary in which British television producer Martin Durkin has fraudulently misrepresented both the data involved and scientists who have researched global climate. Movie director Durkin has willfully misrepresented the facts about global warming just to advocate his own agenda. The program was originally aired on England?s ?Channel 4? (The ?Supermarket Tabloid? of the airwaves). In the past, ?Channel 4? has had to broadcast a prime-time apology for broadcasting another of Martin Durkin?s ?sleazebag? pseudo-documentaries."

I could go on.

Mark

Hah! They should know.

Seriously, you sound like a True Believer.

which I doubt, it still does not negate the fact that much of Gore's book and documentary is incorrect. A lot of what is in your post is weak and nit-picky.

Speaking of fabricated data, you must be aware of the discovery that global warming data was fabricated:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scientists-caught-producing-false-data-to-push-global-warming.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/breaking-news-scientist-admits-ipcc-used-fake-data-to-pressure-policy-makers/

I could go on too.

Al Gore did, for doing essentially the same thing.

Seems a few want that Oscar back from Al Gore.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/12/al-gore-oscar-global-warming.html

No, it wouldn't do anything for the environment.

But two Hollywood conservatives (yes, there are some) have called upon the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to rescind the prestigious, profitable gold Oscar statuette that it gave ex-Vice President Al Gore et al two years ago for the environmental movie "An Inconvenient Truth.".......