Al Gore to be sued? over Global Warming

#26
#26
al-gore-plane.gif
 
#27
#27
iceman9 said:
While I detest the very essence of the man, its obvious Al Gore is not an idiot. He made a movie that is nothing more than propaganda, filled with inaccuracies, and out and out lies. He has won an academy award, Nobel prize, gone out and preached about conservation, all the while living and extravagant life style, and then sells off carbon credits to a company he owns. Very smart indeed. Now he's possibly going to be sued for those inaccuracies, 500 of the worlds leading scientist are meeting in New York to debunk this fraud, with real data and trends. James Hansen, a scientist with NASA, some say in bed with Gore, is under investigation for some statements made. Scientist who were on the original UN global warming study, have sued to get their names taken off of it, don't want to be associated with it. The question is now, will the media cover and listen to what the 500 scientist have to say with the same zest and voracity that they covered Gore, my guess, probably not.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't be talking about "The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change," which is sponsored by the fossil fuel industry (fronted by the Heartland institute) would you? That meeting is pretty much considered to be a joke by the actual leading scientists in the field. They are even paying an honorarium of $1000 on top of travel expenses for those willing to speak...something highly suspect for a "scientific" conference.

I've kept quiet in this thread, but I want to say a few things about your post. First, I agree that An Inconvenient Truth is a propaganda piece - it was intended to inform and at the same time rally people to a cause. I will also agree that Gore presented certain aspects of climate change in an over the top manner, left the watcher to draw inappropriate conclusions at time, and did not do a good enough job of discussing the uncertainty associated with certain aspects of climate change.

With that said, I think that it is inaccurate to paint all of An Inconvenient Truth as an inaccurate propaganda piece intended to spread lies, which is what I get from your posts on the subject. While there are areas of climate science that have a lot of uncertainty (such as predicting which areas will see drought and which areas will see floods ... and how the ocean's thermohaline currents will react), but there is a core to the science that many, many talented scientists have worked on and developed to a point that the uncertainty is reasonably low. This is more in the area of expected temperature rises and sea level rise.

There is a lot of crap out there on the web on both sides of this issue. Some of that crap tries to make An Inconvenient Truth out to be a total lie....pointing out every inaccuracy to belittle it while failing to recognize that there is a strong scientific basis for other parts. There is also crap out there that induces fear and panic about surging sea level rise of 30 meters and complete melting of the ice caps - which are very improbable. I've studied the issue a lot - and I feel very comfortable in saying that both of these approaches are wrong...and frankly dangerous. I would love to have solid, open discourse on this matter. But, it's not going to happen - it is too political now I'm afraid.

Edit: Also, I'm not certain - but I think that the majority of the scientists that wanted their names taken off were ecologists, biologists, etc. that didn't like the predicted consequences portions of the report with regard to ecosystems. That has nothing to do with the science behind climate change...it has to do with interpreting how systems will respond to said (temperature) change. So, I will use this space to assure you that there is no shortage of world-leading climatologists who accept the report.
 
#28
#28
If we considered every scientist a joke that took money from some institute, a goverment handout, or some corportation, then every scientist would be called out. My point was more on whether the media would cover it as hard as they fell over their feet covering the movie as total fact, and why not discuss the movie in an open forum? I think most scientist would welcome that, and I would say I trust these 500 scientist over the UN any day. But thats just me, loyal tax payer.
 
#32
#32
you are right there will be extreme weather conditions and Al Gore never said he invented the internet but he did say that he sponsered a bill to fund the internet which is true
 
#33
#33
iceman9 said:
If we considered every scientist a joke that took money from some institute, a goverment handout, or some corportation, then every scientist would be called out. My point was more on whether the media would cover it as hard as they fell over their feet covering the movie as total fact, and why not discuss the movie in an open forum? I think most scientist would welcome that, and I would say I trust these 500 scientist over the UN any day. But thats just me, loyal tax payer.
Click to expand...

It isn't so much that they're taking the money to do research..it's that they're being paid to come to the meeting .. it's different. Also, keep in mind that the UN report you spoke of did not make any of their own conclusions on the science. They reviewed over 10,000 peer-reviewed journal articles to write the report and upon which to base their assessment report. There are thousands more scientists behind the IPCC report than are at this Heartland foundation meeting.
 
#34
#34
westtnorangeman said:
you are right there will be extreme weather conditions and Al Gore never said he invented the internet but he did say that he sponsered a bill to fund the internet which is true
Click to expand...

I believe he said that he led the initiative that created the internet.....but I hear you. :thumbsup:
 
#35
#35
TennTradition said:
It isn't so much that they're taking the money to do research..it's that they're being paid to come to the meeting .. it's different. Also, keep in mind that the UN report you spoke of did not make any of their own conclusions on the science. They reviewed over 10,000 peer-reviewed journal articles to write the report and upon which to base their assessment report. There are thousands more scientists behind the IPCC report than are at this Heartland foundation meeting.
Click to expand...

My question being who was in charge of what went into said final paper. Who made the decision to leave out the "Medievil Warm Period", reminds me of the age old question of, what gospels were added to the Bible, and what was left out because of the "climate"(pardon the pun..:p) of the political times they were living in.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top