Dr. Gray Slams Gore

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ad hominem attacks are lame and do not add credibility or validity to your argument/opinion. Instead of calling Gore a hypocrite, which by the way, isn't necessarily relevant or supported by the evidence (carbon emissions offset purchases, purchase of green energy, solar panels, hybrid suv)

Why does this have to be about Gore and him being an alleged hypocrite? If you have a problem with his position on global warming, attack the position and support your argument with credible evidence, do not attack the man because it does no good and it certainly doesn’t further the discussion.
 
Cameron Redwine said:
Ad hominem attacks are lame and do not add credibility or validity to your argument/opinion. Instead of calling Gore a hypocrite, which by the way, isn't necessarily relevant or supported by the evidence (carbon emissions offset purchases, purchase of green energy, solar panels, hybrid suv)

Why does this have to be about Gore and him being an alleged hypocrite? If you have a problem with his position on global warming, attack the position and support your argument with credible evidence, do not attack the man because it does no good and it certainly doesn’t further the discussion.
Click to expand...

Good post. But ad hominem attacks on Gore, and discussions about his alleged hypocrisy, are just distraction tactics for those who don't want to talk about the overwhelming evidence that we have a major problem.
 
While I believe we could be causing GW, I also know about the very warm period in the midevial times and life became very good for alot of people in Eruope. Then came the little iceage. It then got very cold for a long time and many lives were lost. Untill we can understand why this happaned and why it got so warm back then I will not jump on the GW bandwagon. I am not 100% sure on this being a natural life cycle but because of the warm period in the medevial times I am leaning towards this being earths natural life cycle. Mabey man is just making the natural life cycle wamer? I do not personally hate Al Gore or TWC's Hiedi Cullen but thier views on GW I do not agree with. I guess if you disagree according to Hiedi Cullen then your AMS seal of aprovall should be removed. Dr. Gray I do not pay any attention to but I am not suprised he called Al Gore a fool.

Just my oppiniun on the subject.
 
Kevin Scharfenberg said:
...distraction tactics for those who don't want to talk about the overwhelming evidence that we have a major problem.
Click to expand...

No, I want to talk about it... but when my opinions are dismissed because they are "unscientific" or I'm told that GW has been proven to be 90-99% anthropogenic, its hard to argue. I could express my opinions until I'm blue in the face, but that won't change anyone else's opinion.

The point is, we're both arguing opinions and theories, not hard facts. You can show your evidence, and I can show mine. This isn't a "Earth is flat vs. Earth is round" scenario that some try to paint.
 
rdewey said:
No, I want to talk about it... but when my opinions are dismissed because they are "unscientific" or I'm told that GW has been proven to be 90-99% anthropogenic, its hard to argue. I could express my opinions until I'm blue in the face, but that won't change anyone else's opinion.

The point is, we're both arguing opinions and theories, not hard facts. You can show your evidence, and I can show mine. This isn't a "Earth is flat vs. Earth is round" scenario that some try to paint.
Click to expand...

Well, I want to base my opinions on this extremely important topic with sound scientific reasoning. Not personal, politically-biased opinions.

This reminds me very much of Stephen Colbert's TV character. He doesn't want to be confused with all those pesky "facts" from "books" when they get in the way of those facts he "feels" are right that he got from his gut!
 
Kevin I think much of the "reporting" coming out of IPCC has already been proven incorrect. Even the book that was manditory reading for all students in England that was based on the Gore and IPCC data has now been ordered by a judge just this week to be removed due to its inaccuracies and political tilt. YOu can tilt facts either way. Both sides have "data" so to be honest nobody really knows whats the true cause. In 20 years we may be in a major cool down period again. then what?? are we suppose to dump CO2 into the atmosphere to combat that??

And Brian I agree he cant tell SS what to do but he chooses to hire them. My point is he screams GW and we have to all change our lifestyles but I dont see him in a hybrid car. Instead he chooses to ride in massive 10,000 lbs SUV's that use 4 times the fuel of a normal SUV let alone a car, He flies in private jets instead of commercial airlines using 1000's of extra gallons of high octabe (read high carbon) jet fuel, and he lives in a huge house that uses more power than 5 normal families. If all this is soo bad and the cause of global warming and he wants the world to change then he needs to lead by example. Otherwise he is just another hypocrite mouthpiece like most celebs. Anybody who says he lives a green life is either lying or looney. So he has NO right to tell me how,where, when to drive, fly, use power in my house, etc...

There are times we know were warmer than now. Also how does Gore explain the cool down in the middle of the 1900's when factories were spewing carbons at a rate much higher than today before things like the EPA ands the clean air act regulated them?? How do we know this is the highest levels that CO2 has been?? Were we able to measure levels and the ozone back in the 1400's or 1700's?? or back in 200bc?? We are just now able to accurately measure these things so we have nothing to compare it true.
 
Jay McCoy said:
And Brian I agree he cant tell SS what to do but he chooses to hire them. My point is he screams GW and we have to all change our lifestyles but I dont see him in a hybrid car. Instead he chooses to ride in massive 10,000 lbs SUV's that use 4 times the fuel of a normal SUV let alone a car, He flies in private jets instead of commercial airlines using 1000's of extra gallons of high octabe (read high carbon) jet fuel, and he lives in a huge house that uses more power than 5 normal families. If all this is soo bad and the cause of global warming and he wants the world to change then he needs to lead by example. Otherwise he is just another hypocrite mouthpiece like most celebs. Anybody who says he lives a green life is either lying or looney. So he has NO right to tell me how,where, when to drive, fly, use power in my house, etc...
Click to expand...

I am still not clear on why this is entirely relevent, but ok. It has been reported that the Gores do own a Lexus hybrid SUV, have purchased green energy from renewable resources, but most importantly, have made a great deal of carbon emissons offset purchases (for those of you worried about his jet).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset

Also, I don't think Gore is telling anyone how, where, or when to drive, fly, and use power. He is merely making suggestions for all people to lessen their carbon footprint on our planet. How is that a bad thing? Would we even be having this discussion if it was someone other than Gore making these suggestions?
 
Jay,

I also am not easily persuaded by judicial opinions either. That said, the British judges' order was in regard to the showing of Gore's film, and he ordered that it be shown with 9 specific "disclaimers" associated. It should be noted the IPCC 4th report was NOT part of the judge's order, and is much newer than Gore's film. There is also pretty good reason to believe the judge is in error and many of his statements. A point-by-point rebuttal is offered here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untruths/

There are many answers out there from scientific sources answering your questions about the flat temperature trend in the mid-1900s, how we know CO2 levels are at their highest levels ever, etc. Rather than waste my type reiterating them here (which I fear is a futile effort), I'll just encourage anyone out there actually interested to go look it up.
 
I never thought anything could make me miss the chaser safety and lights/no lights threads. I was wrong.
 
Regardless of what is right and what is not, Gore's very support of the movie politicized it right out of the chute meaning about half the populace had doubts about it from the very beginning. Add to that the inaccuracies and the fact he's talking the talk but not walking the walk what with his own huge and hypocritical carbon footprint and it's no wonder so many people doubt his sincerity. It appears he's more interested in getting his name back into the limelight than anything else. If he's really sincere, why not remain quietly in the background and offer financial support for the project and let the scientists produce the movie in an objective manner. If global warming is as bad as he claims, then he's done a great job hindering our collective ability to do anything meaningful about it. Peace prizes and backslapping won't gain him allies.

On a more anecdotal note, I remember the smog problem in the L.A. area in the late 1960s being horrific. One time I flew into L.A. thinking it was cloudy only to discover it was only a nasty reddish-brown smog that could be smelled before the aircraft landed at LAX. And a couple of years later in nearby Long Beach I was stunned one day to learn the mountains could be viewed from the harbor. My first two weeks there I honestly had no idea the mountains were that close, hidden in the ever present smog as they were. My point is that there have been improvements, that area is not as bad now. Overall the skies today, while still dirty and hazy at times, seem clearer to me than they used to be.

We're making progress but I really think it's being hindered by making the issue political when it shouldn't be. Ironically, I believe Gore has done more harm than good and all I can say to that is shame on you Mr. Gore.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I get the impression that you think anything the UN comes out with is truth Kevin. If there was ever an institution with an agenda it is the UN. Besides that, didn't the UN have to cut its predictions of sea level rises in half? And didn't they also have to admit that the overall human impact on global warming since the industrial revolution "due to unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays"? If this is true, then I would be a little more careful about throwing around IPCC numbers. Where did they make the claim that they were 99% sure man has caused the warming? And what percentage of the warming did they claim we were responsible for? I guess it's just physically impossible that any of the warming could be natural.
Like I said before, do you really think we can accurately sample all the things that influence earth's climate. Not only that, do we have historical records on these things that influence the climate, records that cover a sufficient term of time to identify trends and the degree of natural variations. The answer is a big resounding no. Nobody has yet managed to tell me why the average temperature dropped from 1940-1980. I'm betting you don't have an answer for that Kevin, so I just fail to understand how anybody can think with such certainty that the current warming can be attributed to man. If you can't tell me why the temperature did what it did from 1940-1980, then why do you expect me to believe that you can tell me why it did what it did over the last 100 years. And even bigger yet, these people expect us to believe that they know what the climate is going to do over the next 100 years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
saying you invented the internet and promoting Global warming 2 things

Saying Gore invented the internet and that he is promoting Global warming are 2 different things. However one is a ridiculous statement (whether in this thread and debunked or not ) because others "invented" and pieced together the technology to get it started.
Global warming may truly include a "Gaia" like prophecy (my previous thread).
The bottom line is that climate is changing either man made or artificially or a combination of both, drastically in some places as well and this is seen shrinking glaciers etc etc. which many dismiss (but has and is happening). I just there is a "drought" around the Great Lakes mostly due to the lack of Lake /Sea ice that is needed to prevent lesser evaporation. First time I have hear about the drought in that area. Anyone else hear about that?
Something is going on but no one if for sure.
Interesting thread indeed

:::
rdewey said:
Is this where it was debunked? http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

"...I took the initiative in creating the internet."

Sounds an awful lot like gloating to me... but then again, all politicians do it.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael Gribble said:
I get the impression that you think anything the UN comes out with is truth Kevin.
Click to expand...

It's not just the UN IPCC assessment, it's numerous refereed journal articles in numerous scientific journals from numerous institutions worldwide.

didn't the UN have to cut its predictions of sea level rises in half?
Click to expand...
No. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=427

And didn't they also have to admit that the overall human impact on global warming since the industrial revolution "due to unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays"?
Click to expand...
This doesn't make any sense.

Where did they make the claim that they were 99% sure man has caused the warming? And what percentage of the warming did they claim we were responsible for? I guess it's just physically impossible that any of the warming could be natural.
Click to expand...
I said 90-99%. These answers are in the 4th IPCC assessment and backed up by numerous papers out there. And no, of course it does not preclude some natural forcings, though it's clear from the data that the observed warming in the last century would not have been possible without human carbon pollution. This should not be surprising to anyone and it's certainly not even a debate in scientific circles any more.

Like I said before, do you really think we can accurately sample all the things that influence earth's climate. Not only that, do we have historical records on these things that influence the climate, records that cover a sufficient term of time to identify trends and the degree of natural variations. The answer is a big resounding no.
Click to expand...
I would encourage you to look up how ancient atmospheric samples are extracted from ice cores, and come back to explain why they are not "accurate".

Nobody has yet managed to tell me why the average temperature dropped from 1940-1980.
Click to expand...
Uhm, spending 30 seconds with google I found a number of scientific resources that answer this question. I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it, since you've clearly made your mind up already.

And even bigger yet, these people expect us to believe that they know what the climate is going to do over the next 100 years.
Click to expand...
If we keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and unless there is a major change in volcanic/solar activity to compensate it out of luck, the earth will continue warming up significantly. I don't need an assessment document to tell me this will happen, as it's basic science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Poll Poll
Global Warming Debate Tracker
2 3
Replies
36
Views
9K
Andrew Pritchard
Andrew Pritchard
Earth on the Brink of a new Ice Age.
Replies
8
Views
5K
Dennis Dennison
Back
Top