Al Gore Debates Global Warming
Uploaded by: junksciencecom
Video Description:
Al Gore debates expert climatologists (at last) on whether carbon dioxide causes global warming.
Tags for this video: al carbon change climate debate demand dioxide global gore warming
Find more videos in the "News" category
See more videos uploaded by junksciencecom
| If Polar Bears Were Humans | Al Gore - Reflecting on Climate Change and Global Warming | Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4 |
 |  |  |
| Joint Global Warming Hearing: Al Gore Opening Part 1 | Republican Joe Barton v. Al Gore | Hole in the Sky © - Climate change, global warming & Al Gore |
 |  |  |
Share This Video:
Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Tell a friend:
LOOK AT THE HADLEY DATA YOU HALF A MEATBALL IVE PUT IT ON HERE BEFORE AND HONESTLY YOU HAVE NOTHING LOGICAL OR REFUTABLE TO SAY ABOUT IT.
"Get real, we are fucking the world up, that's obvious.
But I've never seen a cancer to cure its host"
But in the USA we are cleaner than ever
"floods, droughts, crop failures, and economic losses"
That is anything that has not been seen before?
" For one example in Asia, Google "Climate Change Impacts, Vulnerability, and Adaptation in Asia". The problem is that agricultural losses to date have been minor compared to what might be expected if CO2 emissions are not curtailed. They do, however, indicate the urgency of the need to act"
So as you say above, nothing has happened yet, and your doom is only in the "might be" and "indicate" future that only is in cp models
In this case it is not to cure the host, but to make sure the host can still accommodate us.
No grastog1313 my point is you and other AGWers take normal weather that falls within the normal, that goes into making an average (remember 50% is above average and 50% is below average) so it's very easy for you to point to anything that is above or below average and say "proof of AGW" but you should also look at the historical record and see if it's anything that has NEVER happened before. I have, anything you point to as proof has happened before in recorded history.
Also I fly for a living and have flown the world countless times, from up there you can really get a handle on how small man is and how little of the world man is using. All people of the world could live in the state of Texas and still have room for there living space.
The Consensus on Global Warming:
From Science to Industry & Religion
Review what our most reliable sources have to say about climate change at the above link.
There's no reasonable debate in the scientific community because not ONE credible scientific institution says humans are NOT contributing to the earth's warmig. ALL are in basic agreement. But, corporate interests continue to resist.
Case Closed. Now let's do what we can to curb our emissions.
WeCanSolveIt(dot)org
It is impossibly unlikely that the bubbles would have been through a "clean" linear translation in the ice.
There has been mixing, like a low pass filter. The CO2 peaks and troughs are lost.
In mathematical terms it is a "convolution" with unspecified (and very possibly variable) characteristics.
To accurately reverse this would be equivalent to unscrambling an egg.
Google...
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT VOLUME 18 No. 7+8 2007 BIAS AND CONCEALMENT IN THE IPCC PROCESS: THE "HOCKEY-STICK" AFFAIR AND ITS IMPLICATIONS. by. David Holland
Holland's paper will show you how "credible" must start with standards, procedures and full disclosure.
With that, we might have some basis for assessing the substance of claims being banded around in public.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. --Albert Einstein
"...the load-bearing proxies are very problematic and, as previously with the Graybill strip bark chronologies (which remain in use), known defects are ignored using contrived excuses."
Lapsing into that trance-like chant.
You are not a climatologist and therefore not qualified to make claims about what the science in general has to say about the climate.
Gore is just following old false theory of Arrhenius built in 19 th century.
Don't expect much sense from ReduceGHGs.
She is ideologically driven and assumes her motives are superior to other peoples'. She also rates herself as more intelligent.
She declined respond to the issues raised in Holland's paper by refusing to discuss the detail of "the science". In fact, Holland's paper is about standards and procedures.
RGHGs is mainly concerned with trying to discredit people she disagrees with.