I thought that Algore said that the debate was over about global warming. Didn't he say that?

Question

Things that make you go Hmmmm. He must not have read this. Or maybe these aren't scientists. I don't know. I am all confused now. Can someone help?
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Richard: It sure is funny! I laugh my **** off all the time at these people.

The above comment is to Richard O not the other Richard with the very interesting answer.

Al: Nice answer. I would have picked you, but I can only pick one best answer.

Viola: I love your 6th grade playground debate tackics: Just say your opponent isn't smart if you can't debate them with information.

Answer 1

Science is never settled, and consensus in science really doesn’t mean much. The consensus has been wrong many, many times.

The IPCC stopped looking at the science in about 2005, before all the studies were finished. The IPCC made up its mind long before the studies were finished. Even now as the studies are ending the IPCC won’t look at them, could it be because they don’t show the link between CO2 and warming? I’d be willing to be if the studies showed a link you’d see it front page.

The IPCC stated that the report would match the summary, no matter what. The report wasn’t review by scientist but by politicians, line by line.

So let me see, first the IPCC stopped looking at the science, then it drew its conclusions, issued a summary of the report before the report was finished, then made sure the report match the summary, regardless of what the science said, then let politicians edit the summary line by line.

Yep sounds like good science to me.

To Dana1981, Master of Science

That sounds like the editors of the IPCC panel all you need are the politicians

But here a list of Australians contributed to the Working Group 3 report:

Bill Hare, Greenpeace (Ch. 1 - Introduction - Lead Author) (Australian citizen - based O/S)

Roger Beale, Allen Consulting (Ch.2 - Framing Issues - Lead Author)

Brian Fisher, CRA (Ch. 3 - Mitigation in the long-term context - Coordinating Lead Author)

Anna Matysek, CRA (Ch. 3 - Mitigation in the long-term context - Lead Author)

Chris Cocklin, James Cook University (Ch. 12 - Sustainable development and mitigation - Lead Author) (New Zealand citizen - based in Australia)

Mark Howden, CSIRO (Ch. 8 - Agriculture - Contributing Author) (Currently in Europe)

Andrew Wyatt, University of Sydney (Ch. 12 - Sustainable development and mitigation - Contributing Author)

How many climatologists do you see on that list?

The IPCC is made up of many different people not all of them scientist, but its strange when they agreed with you, they were good enough but now that they don’t, you call them into question.

Don’t forget this is the same IPCC that has been accused of falsifying data and destroying evidence, if that would have been a skeptic that was accused of that it would have been front page new all over the world. But it’s the sacred IPCC and we can’t accuse them of falsifying data and destroying evidence can we.

I’ve said it over and over, if you theories are sound, if you data is sound, if assumptions are sound, if the way you collect you data is sound, then you WELCOME skeptics because if the skeptics can’t destroy your theory then more likely then not it’s probably right. But if you data, assumption, theory, etc aren’t sound then you seek to destroy the skeptics, which one sound like the pro-man made global warming crowd.

Answer 2

As a conservative, i think people who blame human beings for "climate exchange" blindly keep on with communists, one international government human beings, and different dissimilar liberals and anti-capitalists. i do no longer place self assurance in any propaganda for something. synthetic is a hoax. a million. i don't have faith that we are that substantial in nature that we can do this lots injury. 2. you are able to't have consensus in technological know-how. 3. maximum of those at the back of the circulate the two earnings from it (Gore) or have an time table. 4. The scientists have been incorrect. contained in the Seventies, it grow to be international cooling. contained in the Eighteen Eighties it grow to be acid rain. contained in the Nineties it grow to be international warming. Now it quite is climate exchange.

Answer 3

You are right--these aren't scientists. You forget--any senator, including the right-wing nuts who areon the oil company payrolls--can put anything they want into the Congressional record. Including fake "reports" like this.

Further--its not AlGore who decided that the evidence for man-made global warming is conclusive and the debate wasover--it was the scientific community. Gore just reports their findings. The fake "skeptics" dwho keep mouthing off about "what Gore said" are only showing their own ignorance of the issues. LOL

Answer 4

Yep,you certainly are confused. The debate is over on Global Warming. It is real,and all the juvenile remarks on Al Gore isn't going to add to the debate. The use of fossil fuels causes the warming. If you can't understand how we could effect the worlds climate,research how oxygen levels were increased to todays level by a one celled organism over millions of years. A car can add tons on CO2 in just a year! If you don't like Al,don't vote for him,but Science is not up for a vote. I hope this helps to ease your confusion !

Answer 5

From your article (from Inhofe's blog):

"The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology."

Many of those fields have little to do with climate science. They might contribute to a climate science paper, but the scientists themselves would not be climate science experts.

This smells of the Oregon Petition hoax.

Answer 6

I'm not aware that Gore said any such thing. If he did, he's mistaken: the debate over global warming is - finally - just getting started (twenty-five years too late).
The scientific community overwhelmingly agrees that global warming is the most serious threat to the future of the planet, thanks in large part to man's 'industrial revolution' that has accelerated the cyclical process, making it difficult for man, plants and animals to adapt to the coming climate changes. -RKO- 12/20/07

Answer 7

Having not seen the report (it won't be released until 11 o'clock today), I can't comment on it. Although it being published on Senator Inhofe's Blog makes me more than a little skeptical. Also, I saw several favorable comparisons between GW skeptics and Galileo, which always makes me giggle.

Answer 8

OwlGore is loved in the European countries. After he gets humiliated over this that will be his new home.
Now that 400 are out saying its a myth more and more will come out. Some of them were scared they would be blasted but the truth is coming out and the global warming naysayers will be proven correct.

Answer 9

Global warming is full of half truths and globalist are trying to harness this topic for political agendas around the world.
is global warming occuring ? Probably, but whats really causing it ? Human carbon emmissions ? or natural occuring events like vocanoe's, forest fires etc ?
for every one scientist saying its humans causing this, theres one scientist saying.uh, nooo....the earth goes through these cycles every so often, over thousands of years of heating and cooling.....Global Warming is a political tool.

Answer 10

Yeah, and Inhofe is a good source of information. As far as politicians go they are all untrustworthy, but Inhofe is amazing in his support for the petroleum industry. You know what, forget it, because this isn't even funny anymore...