Regardless of whether "Global Warming" is happening or not, it is very beneficial to the environment, as we have become a lot more conscious and we are spending a lot more resources in protecting and rejuvenating the environment...
35 Flaws in Gore's Movie
- Thread starter sandy
- Start date
We shouldn't lie to people to get them to care about the environment
There's lots of other reasons to use less CO2
Like......
Use less C02? What do we use it for, other than fire extinguishers?
Like gas prices
Reducing foreign dependence
Less car maintenance
I'm against any gas cars but not because of this "global warming" hoax
I took a look through Sandy's link, and found not hard and fast errors but matters of emphasis and interpretation for the first three. I quit when I hit this one, because I do recall the movie particulars here - I was paying attention to the arguments of the movie, form an interest in suhc popularizations of scientific matters - and this one is just false:
The standard explanation for their pattern of occurrence - the explanation for their instigation taken as more or less given by almost all global warming alarmists - is the Milankovitch cycle and a couple of similar astronomical factors.
The contribution of the CO2 is postulated to be the magnitude of the temperature swings - the Milankovitch cycle should produce smaller, more subtle effects: something has to be amplifying it. CO2 looks to be a likely culprit, as Gore's graph makes clear. This amplification effect is of course exactly the one involved in the current worries.
So the presentation of these "35 errors" seems to be leading off with garbage, and not worth one's time.
Gore at no time in the movie claimed that CO2 increases had instigated or started the previous warming trends he graphed.
The standard explanation for their pattern of occurrence - the explanation for their instigation taken as more or less given by almost all global warming alarmists - is the Milankovitch cycle and a couple of similar astronomical factors.
The contribution of the CO2 is postulated to be the magnitude of the temperature swings - the Milankovitch cycle should produce smaller, more subtle effects: something has to be amplifying it. CO2 looks to be a likely culprit, as Gore's graph makes clear. This amplification effect is of course exactly the one involved in the current worries.
So the presentation of these "35 errors" seems to be leading off with garbage, and not worth one's time.
Is this the same Al Gore that invented the internet?
Watch the movie again. After his presentation of his long, long, long graph with CO2-temperature correlation, he says something like: "Remember this: More CO2, more warm it gets."
His entire presentation is devoted to show that CO2 warms Earth in a dangerous way.
What Gore has is a graph showing there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature, but the people who sees the graph don't go to the devils in the detail. Gore makes the wrong correlation. The scale of the graph does not allow to see (if it was correctly presented) that CO2 increase lags temperature increase by a delay of 600 to 1000 years. (Monin et al, 2000) and other studies.
Furthermore, correlation does not mean causation. For causation you must provide proofs -the corpus delicti. And not such proof or evidence has been supplied.
Nope. This is a new one, resurrected from his own ashes as a new Phoenix Bird. After his PowerPoint and DVD he is known as Al Bore.
Gore at no time in the movie claims that the CO2 instigated or started past warming trends.edufer said:
Anybody claiming that Gore said past CO2 boosts began, instigated, or started past warming trends is wrong. He did not.
His argument does not depend on that. His argument depends only on CO2, once present, trapping solar heat energy in the lower atmosphere and warming it. There is plenty of evidence for that, starting with fairly simple physics: if the CO2 boost weren't trapping extra heat, that would be strange - it should.
Sandy's link claimed that Gore said something, and that it was an error. He did not say it, and he did not commit that error.
One down, 34 to go. They are all basically garbage, as far as I can tell by skimming them.
Sorry iceaura, it looks as you are blinded by your religious faith in Almighty TV Preacher Gore. You are trying to make diversion moves with your red herrings.
As I sad, his entire movie is based on the false premise that CO2 drives climate change because CO2 traps “heat” and warms the atmosphere. That means, (not explicitly expressed, but cunningly implied) that CO2 increases in the past did cause temperature increases. He didn’t use the word “trend” for that. Just “more CO2, gets warmer”.
Did you know that every doubling of CO2 levels has a decreasing logarithmic rate of temperature increase? Doubling CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm will produce a temperature increase as doubling from 500 to 1000 ppm, or from 2000 to 4000 ppm. Do you need a graph for that?
Sorry, 35 still to go.
As I sad, his entire movie is based on the false premise that CO2 drives climate change because CO2 traps “heat” and warms the atmosphere. That means, (not explicitly expressed, but cunningly implied) that CO2 increases in the past did cause temperature increases. He didn’t use the word “trend” for that. Just “more CO2, gets warmer”.
Did you know that every doubling of CO2 levels has a decreasing logarithmic rate of temperature increase? Doubling CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm will produce a temperature increase as doubling from 500 to 1000 ppm, or from 2000 to 4000 ppm. Do you need a graph for that?
Sorry, 35 still to go.
It's sad that the whole "Planet in Peril" documentary airs at 1:00am. Makes you think how much people care about this whole issue.... :shrug:
Regardless of whether we are causing it or not, global warming is real and we must find a way to deal with it.... :shrug:
The important question is.... how much can we affect the environment? Can we affect it enough to stop or at least slow down global warming?
Regardless of whether we are causing it or not, global warming is real and we must find a way to deal with it.... :shrug:
The important question is.... how much can we affect the environment? Can we affect it enough to stop or at least slow down global warming?
The movie does not take that as a premise, but rather something to be shown and argued. Which it does informally, but with commendable allegiance to the science involved.edufer said:
That depends on the exact concentrations and feedbacks of water vapor and other atmospheric gasses etc.edufer said:
And it grants Gore's point - Gore's argument does not depend on the increase being accellerating or anything like that - just that it exist with enough significance.
And that is true - Gore is correct about that, at least as far as agreeing with all mainstream science for many years. The CO2 increases fed back. They just didn't start the warming trends. Obviously more CO2 means greater greenhouse gas effect, no?edufer said:
Sandy's link did not say that. Sandy's link said the Gore claimed the past CO2 increases started the warming trends, rather than merely contributing to the magnitude of the increases. That's why the link made a big deal out of which began first - to Gore's argument it makes no difference, to the link claim it does. Sandy's link is wrong about that.
Facial
Valued Senior Member
I would take it that this is one of your wishful "causations," supported by several lonely papers.
Umm..Maybe climate temp drifting up and down is natural. I mean, there's only a chance that they get tomorrow's forcast correct. This goon thinks he knows what the future has in store...Sorry, I'm no scientist but there's way too many variables here. Just ask the guys who designed the computer models they used. They can be made to say anything.
He never said he did.
It's not false. The IPCC says it's extremely likely:
The combined anthropogenic RF [Radiative forcing] is estimated to be +1.6
[–1.0, +0.8]2 W m–2, indicating that, since 1750, it is extremely
likely that humans have exerted a substantial warming
influence on climate. This RF estimate is likely to be at least
five times greater than that due to solar irradiance changes. For
the period 1950 to 2005, it is exceptionally unlikely that the
combined natural RF (solar irradiance plus volcanic aerosol)
has had a warming influence comparable to that of the combined
anthropogenic RF.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf
----------------------
Indicators of the human influence on the atmosphere
Last edited:
It's obvious that the levels of greenhouse gases has increased due to humans. The question, however, is whether we have caused a significant increase.
Here's an example:
Let's say before us, the level of CO2 was of "1500" in the atmosphere. If humans created and extra "1500" then that's an obvious increase caused by humans. However, if we increased by "100", that's not a significant increase. You see, we have increased from "1" to "100", so it appears to be a significant increase. However, if there was already "1,500", then out of a sudden, it is not that significant anymore.
Here's an example:
Let's say before us, the level of CO2 was of "1500" in the atmosphere. If humans created and extra "1500" then that's an obvious increase caused by humans. However, if we increased by "100", that's not a significant increase. You see, we have increased from "1" to "100", so it appears to be a significant increase. However, if there was already "1,500", then out of a sudden, it is not that significant anymore.
Flaws in the flaws
ERROR 5
Snows of Kilimanjaro "melting"
Gore says “global warming” has been melting the snows of Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. It is not.
The cause of the melting is long-term climate shifts exacerbated by imprudent regional deforestation, and has nothing to do with “global warming.”
So cutting down trees is causing the glaciers to retreat? Ha Ha Ha.
“Every tropical glacier for which we have documented evidence shows that glaciers are retreating.” Chalk one up for Gore.
ERROR 26
Larsen B Ice Shelf "broke up because of 'global warming'"
Yet there has been extensive ice-shelf break-up throughout the past 10,000 years,
That's funny. We don't have anybody who's 10,000 years old nor any 10,000 year-old satellite pictures.
So ice just suddenly breaks apart and melts for no reason?
This website doesn't do a whole lot to persuade me that we're not causing global warming.
ERROR 5
Snows of Kilimanjaro "melting"
Gore says “global warming” has been melting the snows of Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. It is not.
The cause of the melting is long-term climate shifts exacerbated by imprudent regional deforestation, and has nothing to do with “global warming.”
So cutting down trees is causing the glaciers to retreat? Ha Ha Ha.
“Every tropical glacier for which we have documented evidence shows that glaciers are retreating.” Chalk one up for Gore.
ERROR 26
Larsen B Ice Shelf "broke up because of 'global warming'"
Yet there has been extensive ice-shelf break-up throughout the past 10,000 years,
That's funny. We don't have anybody who's 10,000 years old nor any 10,000 year-old satellite pictures.
So ice just suddenly breaks apart and melts for no reason?
This website doesn't do a whole lot to persuade me that we're not causing global warming.
"error" 5
Possibly, however the world's glaciers are indeed melting fast.
"error" 26
Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapse Tied to Global Warming
Possibly, however the world's glaciers are indeed melting fast.
"error" 26
Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapse Tied to Global Warming
There was a man on PBS last week saying that the glacier he had studied for 20 some years was INCREASING in size...Naturally, this was due to the "sometimes unusual effects of global warming"....Geeze Louise! can people just say whatever they want and be taken 4serious. When it comes to the enviro, it would seem that way.