Why do people think the IPCC and Al Gore are deceiving the public?

Question

Well i know they did find a couple of errors in An Inconvenient Truth but so what? They only want to spread the news about what could happen to our planet if we don't do something.

And plus Al Gore is an EX politican so i don't want people saying its a political scam.

Dr. Jello- I am not just talking about An Inconvenient Truth!!! As of today, there are so many other documentaries about Global Warming that say pretty much the same thing. People just pick at that one documentary because Al Gore WAS a Politician. He even said he didn't want to run for president.

And nuclear power might be a "quick fix" but where will we store the radioactive waste that it leaves? We have to think of a universal sign that whatever inhabits this planet will understand and not open where we store all this waste. And what about explosions? Think about Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island. People are stil suffering form the effects of nuclear radiation and mutations due to the radiation that is still in the atmosphere. It doesn't just leave the atmosphere in 10 years it takes a lot longer than that.

Anyone agree with me?

Richard- How can they find errors if an Inconvenient Truth was about what COULD happen if humans as a whole don't do anything to stop the progression of Global Warming.

Answer 1

The politics is the discussion that goes on here. Everyone complaining and little getting done.

Al Gore and the IPCC aren't deceiving the public when discussing the severity of the issues related to climate change. This isn't just about a couple of degrees rise in temperature. The domino effect of all of it means toxicity in your homes, your children, your grandchildren.

How does mercury, incinerated garbage, banned pesticides, vehicle emissions, etc, get in the body of a baby that has never take a breath? Go to http://www.thermoguy.com and scroll down to the picture of the fetus where you can link on the study of polluted newborns. All of the science and participants are listed. The toxicity ratio was 100% and I have medical support saying it means a fetus will be in a 911 crisis from conception. They took it further by saying "children don't have cancer at 10, they have had it for 10 years and nine months".

The IPCC and Al Gore are missing science but credit has to be given for bringing this issue to the forefront. All the laws are in place and the IPCC nor Gore is above the laws.

The greenhouse gas theory was the best we had because every industry assumed the other was doing their job so what could be causing a heat rise? That is where the debate begins on whether this is natural or man made.

I recently presented some advanced thermal imaging of solar impact on buildings to a professor working on forest devastation from bugs and he replied " the greenhouse gas theory is seriously flawed ".

Solar radiation and the same UV that burns our skin is causing buildings to generate extreme heat 10 minutes after sunrise. The buildings aren't designed for the heat and we are using air conditioning to treat the indoor heat symptom.

Air conditioning is really refrigeration associated with ozone depletion and we are using it in almost 100% of buildings.

Did you know that from the tree being cut down to development is a very big industry nationwide. Universities, tech schools, research, lumber exports, construction, etc, etc design buildings with temperature in a calculator and sign it off as compliant because function couldn't be seen.

Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-heatgain.html and see UV impact as well as heat generation close to boiling temperature. Does that look natural?

Al Gore brought the issue forward and the world will thank him because in my opinion, he isn't alarming enough. We can't generate heat close to boiling temperature in every city, every state, province, country or otherwise. In the winter buildings are generating extreme heat.

Gore is an administrator, it is up to us, the consumer to address it and there is nothing natural about this.

Answer 2

Common experience is a well situation to begin. Fill a tumbler of water up approximately two/three of water, upload ice cubes to deliver it to overflowing. Let the ice soften, what occurs.... not anything, the floating ice srinks to its usual mass of water and fits the extent within the glass with out walking over the perimeters of the glass. Where the ice "Was" floating above the entire stage of the glass earlier than melting, the water stage is the identical, complete to the threshold of the glass, simply no ice. There shall be little flooding within the occasion that the Arctic ice melted the identical method the glass with ice in it did not overflow. The Arctic ocean is ice floating above the water, because it melts, it replaces the gap it took up because it iced over and increased which allowed it to drift. The global's ocean stages don't seem to be going to difference that so much as Mr. Gore claims. That on my own suggests a special loss of reality in his tale, and typical experience will have to kick in for such a lot men and women. Most of the ice that's land headquartered, similar to Greenland and Antarctica, is miles thick and so heavy that it has compelled the bottom to push down into the earth's crust, because it melts off, the crust will thrust back up and substitute the quantity. I could be extra worried approximately earthquake pastime than emerging water stages. The global is warming, simply because it cooled and shaped the Ice Age with out a end result from guy, then melted once more as it's doing now, the tip of the ice age continues to be ongoing and was once began lengthy earlier than mankind might take the blame for it. The nearby and countrywide climate offerings are not able to get the following couple of days forecast correct, why do you feel they could be any higher telling you what could occur in two decades? Thirty years in the past, they have been screaming that an new Ice age was once coming near.... it did not occur. If a character yells "FIRE!" lengthy sufficient, there shall be a fireplace somewhere, simply as it's facet of the usual velocity of existence. That character will declare credit score fortelling of the crisis, a few will chant that he's the supply of all that's smart, such a lot will become aware of that's going to occur regardless and that he's a idiot. The fireplace will move out, and not anything will difference, besides that the character will now yell fireplace extra in most cases in an try to reclaim the quick lived repute from the primary fireplace. The fires will once more go back, however no longer in view that of that character's ablity to predict the long run, it's in view that that's facet of the cycle of existence.

Answer 3

Al Gore's exaggerations are deceptive. If you remove all of his exaggerations, there are no scary predictions left.

The IPCC heavily promoted the "Hockey Stick" chart created by Michael Mann. This chart attempted to photoshop the temperature record over the last 1,000 years. It cooled down the Medieval Warm Period and warmed up the Little Ice Age and made the 1990s look like it was the warmest in 1,000 years. Mann hid results contrary to his conclusions in a computer directory title "CENSORED_BACK_TO_1400." This was very unethical. Steve McIntyre found all of Mann's errors. Read the article in the Dutch science magazine that tells the whole story.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf

Even the scientists have complained about the IPCC exaggerating the science. Christopher Landsea resigned from the IPCC because the IPCC made unjustified statements linking global warming to hurricanes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Landsea

Roger Pielke has published complaints about the IPCC ignoring peer-reviewed research that goes against their view global warming will be catastrophic. Some of the peer-reviewed papers (Peterson and Parker papers) were already refuted by other peer-reviewed papers, but the IPCC ignored the fact they had been refuted.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/09/01/the-2007-ipcc-assessment-process-its-obvious-conflict-of-interest/

Dr. Vincent Gray is another IPCC reviewer who has complained about the process and has now called for the IPCC to be disbanded.
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/157%20evt.sci.fraud.pdf

These scientists are not some hacks. They are all contributors to the IPCC process.

Answer 4

Let’s see, maybe it was the statement from IPCC that said they would make sure the report matched the summary. That must be the “NEW” science you know here’s my conclusions first and I’ll then pick the evidence the show my conclusions are right.

Maybe it was in the report from the IPCC where the increase was within the +- of the report.

Maybe it the models the IPCC uses, you know the one that can’t be set back more the a few hundred years and come to today climate?

Maybe it because the IPCC still has not corrected or apologized for the ‘hockey-stick’, by which it falsely abolished the mediaeval warm period.

Maybe it was the heavily-corrected version of the IPCC report that was posted on the IPCC’s website without issuing a public statement on the errors.

Maybe it was… I could go on and on if you wish

An inconvenient truth with only a couple of errors? More like 35 if you count them all some minor some major. The UK court only used 9. http://aaea-la.blogspot.com/2007/10/judge-identifies-9-errors-in-al-gores.html

As far as Al Gore goes, if he really believes in man-made global warming why doesn’t he walk the walk. Look at his houses, flying in a private jet, not very environmentally friendly.

It not a political scam, but it’s a way for Al Gore to make a legacy for himself.

Answer 5

Isn't Al Gore the same person who claimed to have invented the internet? 'nuff said...

Give me a break and LIGHTEN up people. I know big Al didn't *actually* invent the internet, but his comments are too fun to let go by.

The point I was trying to make though was that of credibility. The whole internet thing is pretty well known, whether misinterpreted by some or not. Just like the Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich one day questioning Bush's mental health, then the next day saying he had seen UFOs. Where did his credibility just go? Same can be true with big Al and global warming.

Answer 6

Because they are telling the truth and this flies in the face of all the propaganda spewed by our leaders.
The media then has to try to persuade the people that the government really is looking after the best interests of the people

Answer 7

Amazing every one trusts the IPCC and you dont even know who they are, only that they seem to enjoy having meetings in Paris and Bangkok, Spain, Germany, when they coulda teleconferenced but maybe they needed to wine and dine some scientists and take some funny pics.
Algore tells you he lies but hey, thats allright he's getting the word out.
Algore only wants to get the word out. Yea at a tremendous profit to him.

Algore says
""I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis. ""

Answer 8

For starters, the AGW theory is an absolute disgrace and a dark time for science, reducing all human CO2 emissions would have no effect on the climate. There is no proof that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would have any dramatic effect on the climate as well.

As for Al Gore he may not know any better but he will always be a politician, politicians are in it for power or for ego, but he is using his political stature to scare people and attempt to direct US policy down the wrong path.

The IPCC is a corrupt organization comprised of some scientists, environmental activists and political activists with an agenda of controlling the sucessfull countries of the world, with their patheticaly weak theory that can only be supported by computer models.
.

A cut from U.S. Senator Inhofe's speech:

<<<<
Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes. "I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol," Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. Former Colorado State Climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007: "The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict.
>>>>>>

The above incident is not by any means isolated.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=dcc7c65f-802a-23ad-4668-0aec926c60c8&Region_id=&Issue_id=e49f29f7-802a-23ad-483b-0d16e87b0811

.
.

Answer 9

I have a couple of right wing friends, It is amusing when they start talking about such issues. I watch the they they talk, and let them prattle on a bit, I'm a bit of a keen people watcher, I say to them "that's all straight out of the Sun isn't it?" They don't deny it, realize what they're doing, and then we have a conversation not based on the tabloid media. Normally a lot more sensible, and more honest. The frequency of these 'conversations' only goes down.

The right wing media spout it because it makes money. Exhibit no. 1 Rupert Murdoch.

Answer 10

Some are honestly mistaken.

Many are simply conservatives who base their opinions on their political beliefs. If liberals, environmentalists, or worst, Al Gore say something it MUST be wrong. No matter that 99+% of climatologists say the same thing.

They should maybe listen to Newt, and the prestigious National Review:

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review published a cover story this past week calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

Of course Gore didn't claim to have invented the Internet. The man who has the best claim to that, Vin Cerf, has said Gore's actual words accurately reflect his contribution. Proof:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Richard - The problem with your stuff about the IPCC is that the changes are minor and, most importantly, they go the wrong way for your argument. The report is done and peer reviewed first. Then the summary is done. Scientists are pretty successful in keeping any political changes to the summary minor. And the changes are in the direction of making global warming less alarming, not more. Scientists said it was "virtually certain" that man was causing global warming. The politicians insisted on changing that to "very likely". Not a big change, and in the wrong direction for the "skeptics" argument.

The judge who found minor errors in Gore's movie basically said he thought the film was great. READ THE FULL DECISION HERE.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

"substantially founded upon scientific research and fact"

"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

The film was being sued to block its' use in British schools. The Plaintiffs lost. The spin on this on right wing websites has been bizarre.