« Not Even MTV Buying Sicko | Main | Padres Have Gay Group Sing National Anthem »

i do believe if i had to look at or listen to this person for four years, i'd have to gore my own eyes and eardrums out!

And then there is the IPCC and it's use of the "Hockey Stick." Not to mention the use by the IPCC of climate models over and above observational data. And then there's one of the the IPCC's lead authors of the IPCC's Second Assessment in 1996, Ben Santer, who altered the report by deleting statements by scientists that there was no evidence, no study positively attributing climate change to man-made causes and instead inserted his own statement that "the body of statictical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate." a statement that the scientists didn't sign off on; it was inserted by Santer after they'd veted the report. Will Al Gore ever refer to these things and call for the IPCC to end the distorting of science?

Too bad that Taylor resorted to fabricating a quote to attack Gore. Doesn't that bother you?

Naw, sometimes you have to use lefty tactics to expose morons. What about the substance of VH's post above about Gore's obvious lies? Doesn't that bother you?

I think Gore made a few errors in his movie (some only seen in hindsight) but I'm more bothered by the misrepresentation of science in critiquing his film.

Re hurricanes, the dispute isn't that global warming is causing more hurricanes but that it's increasing their severity and longevity.

Re Himalayan glaciers, the 2006 study on Himalayan glacier growth is not refuting global warming (quite the contrary) but observing anomalous behaviour in a particular Indian region which has shown short term glacier growth in contrast to the long term, widespread glacier retreat in the rest of the Himalayas. There is no disputing that glaciers are retreating - a 2007 satellite study of Himalayan glaciers has observed "an overall deglaciation of 21%" from 1962 to 2007. Globally, glaciers are shrinking in area and thickness and the melt rate has accelerated dramatically since the mid-1990s. In essence, the 2006 Himalayan study is the exception that proves the rule.

Antarctic cooling is a uniquely regional phenomenon. Global warming doesn't mean the entire globe is uniformly warming at the same rate but that the average global temperature is rising. In fact, Antartica is a great case study on how the media and global warming skeptics seize upon a study and interpret it inappropriately. The original study observed regional cooling in east Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole causes cooling in the stratosphere. This increased circular winds around the continent preventing warmer air from reaching eastern Antarctica and the Antarctic plateau. The flip side of this is the Antarctic Peninsula has "experienced some of the fastest warming on Earth, nearly 3°C over the last half-century".

While East Antartica is gaining ice due to increased precipitation, Antartica is overall losing ice. This is mostly due to melting in West Antarctica which recently featured the largest melting observed by satellites in the last 30 years. As well as melting, Antartic glaciers are accelerating further adding to sea level rise.

Finally looking at Mt Kilimanjaro, indeed land use seems to be causing the shrinking glacier so Gore may have got this wrong. But Philip Mote who wrote the original article in American Scientist puts it in perspective: "The fact that the loss of ice on Mount Kilimanjaro cannot be used as proof of global warming does not mean that the Earth is not warming. There is ample and conclusive evidence that Earth's average temperature has increased in the past 100 years, and the decline of mid- and high-latitude glaciers is a major piece of evidence."

In other words, all this nitpicking of minor side-issues is skirting around the main point of An Inconvenient Truth which is that human CO2 emissions are the driving force behind global warming.

In other words, all this nitpicking of minor side-issues is skirting around the main point of An Inconvenient Truth which is that human CO2 emissions are the driving force behind global warming.

Great. I hate cold weather.

In other words, all this nitpicking of minor side-issues is skirting around the main point of An Inconvenient Truth which is that human CO2 emissions are the driving force behind global warming.

You realize that the main point of the movie isn't true, right? Anthropogenic activity has not been proven to be "...the driving force behind global warming," at all. Ever. And there is no consensus among real scientists that humans cause glow-ball warming.

I think Gore made a few errors in his movie (some only seen in hindsight) but I'm more bothered by the misrepresentation of science in critiquing his film.

You should be more concerned about those "errors" the Goreacle made, because he didn't make that "movie" in a vacuum. The substantial "errors" are of a factual nature and reveal both his bias and his wilfull intent to mislead retards who can't evaluate the evidence on thier own.

Nice comment, what with all of your "evidence" and all. It's all bulllsh!t propaganda, but hey, I appreciate the effort.

In other words, all this nitpicking of minor side-issues is skirting around the main point of An Inconvenient Truth which is that human CO2 emissions are the driving force behind global warming.

Well, now that's the rub isn't it. From what I've read the major greenhouse gas is water vapor. Then there is the finding that historically, atmospheric CO2 levels rise after temperature rise, not before. This leads one to believe that historically, CO2 wasn't the driving force of climate thus leading one to believe that there is some other major driving force. And then there are the findings of the 1500 year cycle of solar influence on cosmic rays which influence cloud cover and which corresponds with things like The Little Ice Age and the Medival Warm Period.

Sorry, JC (you could change your username, if you'd like; I would like, anyway), but anthropocentric "Global Warming" is the single greatest hoax ever perpetrated upon the American people (and the people of the world, for that matter). It's all CRAP, my friend, a huge money-making scheme for has-beens like algore and his buddies ("carbon offsets"! ROTFL!!!). WE need to change the way we live, but algore and his buds will go right on polluting as if the world was going to end tomorrow -- it's total BS!

May I suggest you read J.R. Dunn, in The American Thinker (archives) from January 31, 2007, on the Little Climatic Optimum (LCO); just one of many, many brilliant, factual refutations of the "terror" that is Global Warming out there, and all of them easily found -- after that, you tell me if you still think algore is "right on," or if he is what he truly is: a lying sack of human solid waste (to put it nicely).

JC, here are some articles to help you begin to understand the other side.

#1 Scientists change their minds on global warming after reviewing the evidence.

#2 observational data do not support the sea level rise scenario.

#3 Biologistsays global warming will not pose problems.

#4 Among other issues,Retreat of glaciers reveal a muture forest and a silver mine (maybe it's normal for them to be melted).

#5 any of Dr. Richard Lindzen's commentaries on the AGW hysteria.

Also, watch The Great Global Warming Swindle, from channel 4 in the UK. It is available online.

Thanks for the replies. skh.pcola, I'm not sure if your propoganda comment was directed at me directly. Last night when I read the references to Himalayan glaciers growing, Mt Kilimanjaro and Antartica ice growing, I went and read the original studies and was surprised to see all three authors endorsed anthropomorphic global warming and stressed that the phenomena they observed was unique to the region. So it's a bit ironic that James Taylor is taking the moral high ground when he's taking studies out of context and misrepresenting the science. You could go so far as to say his approach reveals both his bias and his wilfull intent to mislead retards who can't evaluate the evidence on their own - but that would be disrespectful.

Kevin, you're right that water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas - the IPCC estimate water accounts for around 50% to 60% of the greenhouse effect which is much larger than CO2's effect. However, water vapour is not a forcing such as other greenhouse gases that are added to the atmosphere. The level of water vapour in the atmosphere is directly related to atmospheric temperature.

As the ocean and atmosphere temperatures increase, evaporation increases and more water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere. In this sense, water vapour is considered a feedback or amplifier of global warming. In other words, we emit CO2, which warms the world a bit, and this causes more water to vaporize & warm the world more to a higher (more or less) stabilized level. Reducing atmospheric CO2 would cool the earth a bit, which would reduce water vapor, cooling the world more to a lower (more or less) stabilized level. So our emissions (or reductions) have an amplified effect, beyond a purely CO2 effect.

Re the CO2 lag, the question is does temperature rise cause CO2 rise or does CO2 rise cause temperature rise? The answer is both. When temperature rises, the solubility of CO2 in water falls. This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. So temperature rise causes a CO2 rise. When there's more CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth absorbs more heat. Shortwave radiation from the sun passes straight through our atmosphere and is absorbed by the earth. Then the earth emits it as longwave radiation which is absorbed by atmospheric CO2. This is the greenhouse effect. CO2 lets energy in, doesn't let as much get out.

Looking over the past 100,000 years, rising carbon levels have been observed to lag temperature rises. In the past, "wobbles" in the earth's orbit cause global warming - not dramatic warming like present day but gradual warming over thousands of years. As the earth warmed, CO2 levels also went up but 200 to 1000 years later. What is observed then is the atmospheric CO2 amplifies the temperature rise. The models predict the very temperature rises observed. The CO2 lag is exactly what climatologists expect and if anything, confirms the amplifying effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Re the notion that solar influence is driving global warming, Earth's climate is very sensitive to solar activity. In 2005, Sami Solanki at the Max Planck Insitute compared solar activity & temperatures over the past 1150 years and found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity. When sunspot activity was low during the Maunder Minimum in the 1600's or the Dalton Minimum in the 1800's, the earth went through 'small ice ages'. The sun has been unusually hot in the last century - solar output rose dramatically in the early 20th century accompanied by a sharp rise in global temperatures.

However, Solanki also found the correlation between solar activity and global temperatures ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures started rising while solar activity stayed level. This led him to conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

Similarly, the whole problem with the theory that cosmic rays (or lack thereof) are driving global warming is that cosmic radiation has shown no trend over the last 50 years. This has led the Max Planck Institute to conclude that cosmic ray flux and temperature followed each other up to 1970 but there has been no correlation between temperature and cosmic ray flux since 1970. So even if cosmic rays are linked to cloud formation, all they'll find is the cloud formation 50 years ago is similar to now and has little to no impact on the last 30 years of long term global warming.

The sun has been the primary driver of Earth's climate in the past but solar variations are conspicuous in their absence over the last 30 years of long term global warming.

"In this sense, water vapour is considered a feedback or amplifier of global warming. In other words, we emit CO2, which warms the world a bit, and this causes more water to vaporize & warm the world more to a higher (more or less) stabilized level. Reducing atmospheric CO2 would cool the earth a bit..."

You are making some leaps of logic here. The biggest contributor to global warming is the sun, which is source of all warming on earth. As the sun goes through its (proven) cycle of activity, it becomes more or less active, producing more or less radiation. More radiation equates to more evaporation here on earth, leading to more water vapor. You never do get around to enumerating CO2's contribution to glow-ball warming, but you admit that the contribution is small. Yet you ascribe almost unicorn-like magical properties to CO2. Why? Are you and your kind grasping at straws?

Reading the rest of your cut-and-paste comment, you admit all of this, and then refute it with stuff that has absolutely no consensus in the scientific community. So one obscure researcher finds that hoo-mans contribute to global warming? Let me say this again: THERE IS NO PROOF THAT HUMANS CONTRIBUTE SUBSTANTIALLY (OR, INDEED, IN ANY AMOUNT) TO GLOW-BALL WARMING. You people can continue to yank "evidence" out of your ass, but all of that "evidence" is not reproducible by other scientists. Your side has been falsifying data for decades to "prove" what you want proved.

Don't be a rube. Give up your tilting at windmills and admit the truth.

Your friend,
skh

JC: You state: "The sun has been the primary driver of Earth's climate in the past but . . ."

Hate to tell you, bud, but the Sun (let's give it its due; capitalize the "S," please) is STILL the primary driver of Earth's climate. Do you really think anything else, other than the Sun, has anything like the same effect on the Earth's climate? I mean, really? Not pointed at you specifically, but I often wonder how dense people can be to claim that anything -- anything! -- besides the Sun could have a greater effect on the climate, the weather, whatever you want to term it, of the 3rd rock out. My God! -- the arrogance of we mere mortal beings, we mere protoplasm, to imagine that WE can have more of an effect on the Earth than the Sun! Sheer arrogant stupidity of the first order!

And I love these alleged scientists, all with an agenda, who cite alleged facts and trends over 20 or 30 or 50 (or even 100) years -- hilarious! Over many, many MILLIONS of years, something that appears in the record could reasonably be called a real TREND; over several hundreds of thousands of years, you've got a possible trend; but anything less is what's called "wishful thinking" on the part of politicized pseudo-scientists, or is grasped at as an "opportunity" to state something that isn't true, but which can then be "bent" to fit the anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-humanity agenda of the Left. That is then trumpeted by the ignorant "mainstream" media, also with its own agenda, over and over, ad nauseum. Whether it's true or not -- well, that doesn't really concern them.

Some great reading suggestions by Anonymous, JC, as well as the great "Global Warming Swindle" to view. I would also suggest you go to michaelcrichton.com, and read the several speeches and essays Mr. Crichton has written over the past years, decimating the man-made Global Warming lemmings -- this is a man with a brain, a man who can write (unlike the propaganda repeaters such as the IPCC, the MSM, and the legions of bought-off "scientists" who so desperately want man-made global warming to be real). Who want it SO BAD, in fact, they're willing to compromise every principle they once might have had in order to slavishly follow algore and his mind-numbed army of know-nothings right on over the cliff.

jc14, I have seen the Global Warming Swindle and read many of Dr Crichton's arguments - I try to read every blog, article, study and scrap of global warming skepticism, looking for a credible explanation for what's causing global warming if not CO2. I'm still looking. Arguments like "it's the sun, stupid!" might sound persuasive, what with the sun being so big and bright and us humans being so teeny tiny in comparison - but when you look at the actual data and read the studies quantifying solar influence over the last century, you can't come to any conclusion other than solar variations have contributed only a fraction of the warming over the past 30 years.

I'm a skeptic myself in the sense that I like to read original studies and if possible, download the original data myself. I would suggest you compare solar activity to temperature over the past century. You can download the sunspot numbers (a proxy for solar activity) or a reconstruction of solar irradiance. To get an idea of long term trends in solar activity, take an 11 year average to filter out the 11 year solar cycle - then compare it to global temperatures (from weather stations or if they're not your cup of tea try weather balloon measurements or satellite measurements). You'll find that over the past century, global temperatures correlate with solar activity but from 1975, temperatures have steadily risen while solar activity has stayed level. It took me a while to get my head around the concept but it's actually the sun's close correlation with climate in the past which tells us why solar variations aren't driving global warming in recent decades.

Of course most people can't be arsed downloading and plotting data (I'm just a statistics nerd that way) - you can always go and read the original studies that attempt to quantify solar influence on the last 30 years of global warming. I've been scratching around trying to find anything on the subject and this is what I've found so far. Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone." Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970". Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend." Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade". And of course there's Solanki 2006 which was the study that opened my eyes in the first place to both the sun's role throughout history and in recent decades.