Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Need some help moving the goalposts?The Debate Is Over Sound Clip , Quote, MP3, and Ringtone
"If you look at the peer reviewed scientific literature, the debate is over."So, how's that whole I-get-to-define-reality thing working out for you?
Al Gore was speaking of his understanding of the scientific climate science debate, if you want to argue with Al Gore over his understandings have at it. There has been no declaration by any major scientific body, that I am aware of indicating that we know all there is to know about any area of scientific investigation. As the last IPCC survey of the field indicates -
Extremely likely (>95%)of course this report is 5 years old with the next report not coming out till next year.
Anthropogenic change has been detected in surface temperature with very high significance levels (less than 1% error probability). This conclusion is strengthened by detection of anthropogenic change in the upper ocean with high significance level. Upper ocean warming argues against the surface warming being due to natural internal processes. Observed change is very large relative to climate-model simulated internal variability. Surface temperature variability simulated by models is consistent with variability estimated from instrumental and palaeorecords. Main uncertainty from forcing and internal variability estimates (Sections 9.4.1.2, 9.4.1.4, 9.5.1.1, 9.3.3.2, 9.7).
----------------
Very Likely (>90%)
This warming took place at a time when non-anthropogenic external factors would likely have produced cooling. The combined effect of known sources of forcing would have been extremely likely to produce a warming. No climate model that has used natural forcing only has reproduced the observed global warming trend over the 2nd half of the 20th century. Main uncertainties arise from forcing, including solar, model-simulated responses and internal variability estimates (Sections 2.9.2, 9.2.1, 9.4.1.2, 9.4.1.4; Figures 9.5, 9.6, 9.9).
Very Likely (>90%)
All multi-signal detection and attribution studies attribute more warming to greenhouse gas forcing than to a combination of all other sources considered, including internal variability, with a very high significance. This conclusion accounts for observational, model and forcing uncertainty, and the possibility that the response to solar forcing could be underestimated by models. Main uncertainty from forcing and internal variability estimates (Section 9.4.1.4; Figure 9.9).
--------
You said no one said the debate was over.
Your only possible response was, "Yes, I was wrong. Someone did say the debate was over."
But like most cultists, you're unable to admit when you're wrong.
Blah, blah, blah. Among those that lack the ability to differentiate politics from science, they are still clinging to idiotic denial sound bites, blah.
Most ironic post I've seen here to date...
Blah, blah, blah. Among those that lack the ability to differentiate politics from science, they are still clinging to idiotic denial sound bites, blah.
Most ironic post I've seen here to date...
Really? OK, dumb ass, present your evidence that all the continents are growing upwards. This is a scientific debate, bring some science to it, not just idiotic flap yap.
Blah, blah, blah. Among those that lack the ability to differentiate politics from science, they are still clinging to idiotic denial sound bites, blah.
Most ironic post I've seen here to date...
Was the Sahara once an ocean? Has England always been an island?
Both the desertifictation of the Sahara and the submerging of the land between England the Europe were the results of planetary changes that had nothing to do with what mankind did. Although had mankind existed, they would undoubtably have blamed themselves.
You're kidding, right?Need some help moving the goalposts?Al Gore was speaking of his understanding of the scientific climate science debate, if you want to argue with Al Gore over his understandings have at it. There has been no declaration by any major scientific body, that I am aware of indicating that we know all there is to know about any area of scientific investigation. As the last IPCC survey of the field indicates -
Extremely likely (>95%)of course this report is 5 years old with the next report not coming out till next year.
Anthropogenic change has been detected in surface temperature with very high significance levels (less than 1% error probability). This conclusion is strengthened by detection of anthropogenic change in the upper ocean with high significance level. Upper ocean warming argues against the surface warming being due to natural internal processes. Observed change is very large relative to climate-model simulated internal variability. Surface temperature variability simulated by models is consistent with variability estimated from instrumental and palaeorecords. Main uncertainty from forcing and internal variability estimates (Sections 9.4.1.2, 9.4.1.4, 9.5.1.1, 9.3.3.2, 9.7).
----------------
Very Likely (>90%)
This warming took place at a time when non-anthropogenic external factors would likely have produced cooling. The combined effect of known sources of forcing would have been extremely likely to produce a warming. No climate model that has used natural forcing only has reproduced the observed global warming trend over the 2nd half of the 20th century. Main uncertainties arise from forcing, including solar, model-simulated responses and internal variability estimates (Sections 2.9.2, 9.2.1, 9.4.1.2, 9.4.1.4; Figures 9.5, 9.6, 9.9).
Very Likely (>90%)
All multi-signal detection and attribution studies attribute more warming to greenhouse gas forcing than to a combination of all other sources considered, including internal variability, with a very high significance. This conclusion accounts for observational, model and forcing uncertainty, and the possibility that the response to solar forcing could be underestimated by models. Main uncertainty from forcing and internal variability estimates (Section 9.4.1.4; Figure 9.9).
--------
No goalpost moving required or attempted.
You said no one said the debate was over.
Please reference the post where I said this. What I refuted was your implication that there had been any proclamation by science that the "debate was over," that was what we were talking about, and the context of the entire thread. It was clearly inherent to the post to which you responded and the responses I have given. I can't say that I find it terribly surprising that context and critical analysis are absent from your personal proficiencies-list.
Two things pretty much killed the climate change debate.
1) The proclamation that the debate was over
2) All the cooking of the books and rationalization that the flawed data was necessary to generate the level of public concern necessary to end the debate...
Except that neither of these things ever occurred.
Perhaps you can find a post of mine where I claim not to have said something I said.Your only possible response was, "Yes, I was wrong. Someone did say the debate was over."
But like most cultists, you're unable to admit when you're wrong.
There you go again, looking in a mirror and complaining about what you see.
You're kidding, right?You look like an idiot trying to deny you said what you said.No goalpost moving required or attempted.Need some help moving the goalposts?
Please reference the post where I said this. What I refuted was your implication that there had been any proclamation by science that the "debate was over," that was what we were talking about, and the context of the entire thread. It was clearly inherent to the post to which you responded and the responses I have given. I can't say that I find it terribly surprising that context and critical analysis are absent from your personal proficiencies-list.
Just another day at the office.
You're kidding, right?You look like an idiot trying to deny you said what you said.No goalpost moving required or attempted.
Please reference the post where I said this. What I refuted was your implication that there had been any proclamation by science that the "debate was over," that was what we were talking about, and the context of the entire thread. It was clearly inherent to the post to which you responded and the responses I have given. I can't say that I find it terribly surprising that context and critical analysis are absent from your personal proficiencies-list.
Just another day at the office.
Again, looking in the mirror and not liking what you see. Well, I can't say I blame you there.
Obviously, context is a concept beyond your obviously limited capacities, I'll leave it for one of you pack ministers to explain to you.
You left out part of my post (as if that means it doesn't exist -- man, you leftists sure do like to pretend uncomfortable things simply aren't there, don't you? )You're kidding, right?You look like an idiot trying to deny you said what you said.No goalpost moving required or attempted.
Please reference the post where I said this. What I refuted was your implication that there had been any proclamation by science that the "debate was over," that was what we were talking about, and the context of the entire thread. It was clearly inherent to the post to which you responded and the responses I have given. I can't say that I find it terribly surprising that context and critical analysis are absent from your personal proficiencies-list.
Just another day at the office.
Again, looking in the mirror and not liking what you see. Well, I can't say I blame you there.
Obviously, context is a concept beyond your obviously limited capacities, I'll leave it for one of you pack ministers to explain to you.
You left out part of my post (as if that means it doesn't exist -- man, you leftists sure do like to pretend uncomfortable things simply aren't there, don't you? )You're kidding, right?You look like an idiot trying to deny you said what you said.
Just another day at the office.
Again, looking in the mirror and not liking what you see. Well, I can't say I blame you there.
Obviously, context is a concept beyond your obviously limited capacities, I'll leave it for one of you pack ministers to explain to you.
"Perhaps you can find a post of mine where I claim not to have said something I said.
You know, like you just did."
You lose. You said what you said, I proved you wrong, and no amount of dishonest weaseling on your part is going to change it.You left out part of my post (as if that means it doesn't exist -- man, you leftists sure do like to pretend uncomfortable things simply aren't there, don't you? )Again, looking in the mirror and not liking what you see. Well, I can't say I blame you there.
Obviously, context is a concept beyond your obviously limited capacities, I'll leave it for one of you pack ministers to explain to you.
"Perhaps you can find a post of mine where I claim not to have said something I said.
You know, like you just did."
Until you find someone appropriately qualified to make a statement for mainstream science who says "the debate is over" you haven't demonstrated anything I've said is incorrect or improper. Correct and resubmit and I'll consider giving you partial credit.