Gore barely passed "Natural Sciences" in undergrad...(insert el oh el here)

[asterism]

Lordy, lordy, all you 'Conservatives' are doing your best to demonstrate how willfully ignorant you truly are. It is not about Al Gore. It is about the fact that scientists from every nation in the world have stated virtually unanamously that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

All you have are some senators and congressmen owned by the energy companies, and an obese junkie radio jock. In the meantime all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities are stating unequivocally that AGW is real.

Virtually unanimously?

 

[asterism]

Thumby, Gore has put solar panels on his house.

snopes.com: Al Gore's Energy Use

Well good for him.

It only took 2 years of people calling him out for him to do so, but he finally caved in and started walking the lies, I mean talk.

Ah, once again proving yourself to be a lying dumb ass. Gore had to fight the city to be allowed to put the solar panels on his house. And, with the other improvements he did on the house, it uses 20% to 30% less energy than similiar houses in that neighborhood.

Where's your source for that information?

 

[Flopper]

Transcript: Al Gore Got

He probably failed it...but his daddy was a senator after all and probably pulled a few strings.

And your point is??

Nobel prize wining economist Paul Krugman failed freshman economics. Bill Gates was college drop out. Edison only made through 3 months of formal schooling.

 

[daveman]

Well good for him.

It only took 2 years of people calling him out for him to do so, but he finally caved in and started walking the lies, I mean talk.

Ah, once again proving yourself to be a lying dumb ass. Gore had to fight the city to be allowed to put the solar panels on his house. And, with the other improvements he did on the house, it uses 20% to 30% less energy than similiar houses in that neighborhood.

Where's your source for that information?

www.upoldrocksass.com

 

[Trakar]

Al Gore has never claimed to be a scientist, and in fact, has taken pains to make it clear that he is not a scientist. And if you read his books and what he says in his documentary, you will note that he quotes scientists on almost every point he makes. That you think that he claims to be an expert simply indictates that you have never read on the subject in any depth.

So are these the scientists' fault, or Gore's?

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore

11?!
really?
Do you have a link to a more authoritative and perhaps objective reference, the actual court briefs only refer to 9 points of contention and really don't seem to have any strongly negative perspective of the science presented in documentary.

“...is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science was used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme...” (Paragraph 17 (i))

The primary scientific points (as I recall) from Gore's documentary were:

• Global average temperatures have risen markedly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise (climate change);
• Climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions, predominantly carbon dioxide (greenhouse gases);
• Climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
• There are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to mitigate the effects.

These science findings “...are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world’s climate scientists...”(Paragraph 17)
“...Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate...” (Paragraph 22).​

According to my skimming of the various court filings, briefs and findings, (that I've run across so far) the judge apparently looked at an extensive, multipage listing of alleged errors and exaggerations filed in the complaint with the court, but was only persuaded that nine of these were of relevance. He ruled that these nine issues of contention should be identified and discussed in a revised Guidance Note to be circulated with the copies of the An Inconvenient Truth, to avoid the appearance of either the DFES, or local schools, promoting “partisan” political perspectives, it was apparently much more an issue of these perceived political issues than any real issue of scientific problems.

The revised Guidance Note (available at https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/Download?DownloadPublicationReference=DCSF%2000238-2007&DownloadItemReference=Climate%20change%20film%20pack%20guidance%20document%20PDF(DfES%20Online%20Store)&DocumentType=PDF&Url=%2Fpublications%2FeOrderingDownload%2FFilm-pack-guidance.pdf) highlights the points raised by the judge and explains the few issues of controversy and how the issue should be addressed, such as:

Glaciers Recede (2min)
Note: Opportunity to explore the links between glacial recession and climate change – could the melting of glaciers in some parts of the world be down to other factors? Do global trends in glacial recession provide evidence to suggest the influence of climate change? Although many of the examples in this scene are well chosen to illustrate the
effects of human-induced climate change, the causes of the recession of snows on
Kilimanjaro are complex and related to local factors. It cannot be established that this
is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.
[IPCC AR4 WGII SPM p8][IPCC AR4 WGII, TS p48 and Ch 9, p 439-440]


This said, if you have a good solid reference that supports your assertions, I'd really be interested in a link to them so that I can improve my understandings.

 

[RollingThunder]

It is very hilarious to watch the very deluded and demented denier cult dingbats foam at the mouth at the mention of Al Gore's name.

LOLOLOLOL.....it's called 'Gore derangement syndrome'.

Gore Derangement Syndrome
By PAUL KRUGMAN
New York Times
Published: October 15, 2007
(excerpts)

What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?

The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the “ozone man,” but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.” And so it has proved.

For the truth Mr. Gore has been telling about how human activities are changing the climate isn’t just inconvenient. For conservatives, it’s deeply threatening.

Consider the policy implications of taking climate change seriously.

“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals,” said F.D.R. “We know now that it is bad economics.” These words apply perfectly to climate change. It’s in the interest of most people (and especially their descendants) that somebody do something to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but each individual would like that somebody to be somebody else. Leave it up to the free market, and in a few generations Florida will be underwater.

The solution to such conflicts between self-interest and the common good is to provide individuals with an incentive to do the right thing. In this case, people have to be given a reason to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, either by requiring that they pay a tax on emissions or by requiring that they buy emission permits, which has pretty much the same effects as an emissions tax. We know that such policies work: the U.S. “cap and trade” system of emission permits on sulfur dioxide has been highly successful at reducing acid rain.

...So if science says that we have a big problem that can’t be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed.

Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He’s taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


Another example of 'Gore derangement syndrome'.

Koch-funded scientist Richard Muller makes up story about Al Gore, Ralph Cicerone, and polar bears


***

 

[Trakar]

Al Gore has never claimed to be a scientist, and in fact, has taken pains to make it clear that he is not a scientist. And if you read his books and what he says in his documentary, you will note that he quotes scientists on almost every point he makes. That you think that he claims to be an expert simply indictates that you have never read on the subject in any depth.

He seems to offer a lot of conclusions based on "science" and apparently considers himself qualified to chose one scientist's conclusions over another's.

Its not an issue of, is this or that scientist more correct, it's an issue of whether you trust and rely upon the considerations and findings of the acknowledged leaders of the field with the support of more than 97% of the mainstream professionals working in the field, or you choose to reject them and go with the unpublished perspectives of an outlier professor who hasn't actively worked in the field in 20+ years and doesn't even agree with the few other outlier professors that reject and are rejected by the entire rest of the climate science field.

 

[Flopper]

Scientist's climate change predictions can be proved only if it happens. No amount of evidence will be sufficient because the required changes cost too much for something that hasn't been proven. I doubt very many people on the left or right would be willing to sacrifice today to save the planet a hundred years from now. People are just not that benevolent.

 

[Trakar]

Scientist's climate change predictions can be proved only if it happens. No amount of evidence will be sufficient because the required changes cost too much for something that hasn't been proven. I doubt very many people on the left or right would be willing to sacrifice today to save the planet a hundred years from now. People are just not that benevolent.

"beneficient," but you are probably correct for the most part, this would be especially true if there were absolutely no harm until a century from now. The impacts, however, started quite some time ago and will only build and accelerate in frequency as time goes on. It is an exponential process and it won't stop in a century, it'll just be getting started. My only real concern is that we may have already waited to late to save the best parts, and by the time self-preservation motivations really kick in, it may be too late to do anything but prolong the agony.

 

[Flopper]

Scientist's climate change predictions can be proved only if it happens. No amount of evidence will be sufficient because the required changes cost too much for something that hasn't been proven. I doubt very many people on the left or right would be willing to sacrifice today to save the planet a hundred years from now. People are just not that benevolent.

"beneficient," but you are probably correct for the most part, this would be especially true if there were absolutely no harm until a century from now. The impacts, however, started quite some time ago and will only build and accelerate in frequency as time goes on. It is an exponential process and it won't stop in a century, it'll just be getting started. My only real concern is that we may have already waited to late to save the best parts, and by the time self-preservation motivations really kick in, it may be too late to do anything but prolong the agony.

I think most scientist feel that there is sufficient evidence to accept global warming as truth. However, the opposition is very strong. If the temperature in Phoenix is 160 degrees and there is 6 feet of water on Wall Street, the opposition will claim it's a natural occurrence and nothing can be done.

Any solution would require global cooperation and a long term commitment and I don't see that happening.

 

[Trakar]

Scientist's climate change predictions can be proved only if it happens. No amount of evidence will be sufficient because the required changes cost too much for something that hasn't been proven. I doubt very many people on the left or right would be willing to sacrifice today to save the planet a hundred years from now. People are just not that benevolent.

"beneficient," but you are probably correct for the most part, this would be especially true if there were absolutely no harm until a century from now. The impacts, however, started quite some time ago and will only build and accelerate in frequency as time goes on. It is an exponential process and it won't stop in a century, it'll just be getting started. My only real concern is that we may have already waited to late to save the best parts, and by the time self-preservation motivations really kick in, it may be too late to do anything but prolong the agony.

I think most scientist feel that there is sufficient evidence to accept global warming as truth. However, the opposition is very strong. If the temperature in Phoenix is 160 degrees and there is 6 feet of water on Wall Street, the opposition will claim it's a natural occurrence and nothing can be done.

Any solution would require global cooperation and a long term commitment and I don't see that happening.

Unfortunately, I agree completely. Which makes homo sapiens sapiens redundantly ironic.
The wise wise men who were too arrogantly ignorant to survive their own intelligence. I still hold hope, but it shrinks with each passing year of acrimony and inaction.

 

[daveman]

Al Gore has never claimed to be a scientist, and in fact, has taken pains to make it clear that he is not a scientist. And if you read his books and what he says in his documentary, you will note that he quotes scientists on almost every point he makes. That you think that he claims to be an expert simply indictates that you have never read on the subject in any depth.

So are these the scientists' fault, or Gore's?

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore

11?!
really?
Do you have a link to a more authoritative and perhaps objective reference, the actual court briefs only refer to 9 points of contention and really don't seem to have any strongly negative perspective of the science presented in documentary.

“...is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science was used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme...” (Paragraph 17 (i))

The primary scientific points (as I recall) from Gore's documentary were:

• Global average temperatures have risen markedly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise (climate change);
• Climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions, predominantly carbon dioxide (greenhouse gases);
• Climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
• There are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to mitigate the effects.

These science findings “...are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world’s climate scientists...”(Paragraph 17)
“...Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate...” (Paragraph 22).​

According to my skimming of the various court filings, briefs and findings, (that I've run across so far) the judge apparently looked at an extensive, multipage listing of alleged errors and exaggerations filed in the complaint with the court, but was only persuaded that nine of these were of relevance. He ruled that these nine issues of contention should be identified and discussed in a revised Guidance Note to be circulated with the copies of the An Inconvenient Truth, to avoid the appearance of either the DFES, or local schools, promoting “partisan” political perspectives, it was apparently much more an issue of these perceived political issues than any real issue of scientific problems.

The revised Guidance Note (available at https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/Download?DownloadPublicationReference=DCSF%2000238-2007&DownloadItemReference=Climate%20change%20film%20pack%20guidance%20document%20PDF(DfES%20Online%20Store)&DocumentType=PDF&Url=%2Fpublications%2FeOrderingDownload%2FFilm-pack-guidance.pdf) highlights the points raised by the judge and explains the few issues of controversy and how the issue should be addressed, such as:

Glaciers Recede (2min)
Note: Opportunity to explore the links between glacial recession and climate change – could the melting of glaciers in some parts of the world be down to other factors? Do global trends in glacial recession provide evidence to suggest the influence of climate change? Although many of the examples in this scene are well chosen to illustrate the
effects of human-induced climate change, the causes of the recession of snows on
Kilimanjaro are complex and related to local factors. It cannot be established that this
is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.
[IPCC AR4 WGII SPM p8][IPCC AR4 WGII, TS p48 and Ch 9, p 439-440]


This said, if you have a good solid reference that supports your assertions, I'd really be interested in a link to them so that I can improve my understandings.

So 9 is okay by you?

 

[Trakar]

...So 9 is okay by you?

9 political issues that need to be clarified, discussed and properly explained when this film is shown as part of required curriculm classes? Sure! I'm more than fine with that! I wish we had some national education laws in this nation that would allow judicial review of educational material and the ability to ferret out and highlight political bias in educational material and mandate that the presentation of such material be accompanied by guidelined discussions and explanations of the material. It might do away with a lot of the shennanigans we're seeing in places like Kansas, Texas and California.

I'm in agreement with and perfectly fine with the legal assessment of the science presented in the film:

“...are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world’s climate scientists...”(Paragraph 17)

“...Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate...” (Paragraph 22).

 

[asterism]

Al Gore has never claimed to be a scientist, and in fact, has taken pains to make it clear that he is not a scientist. And if you read his books and what he says in his documentary, you will note that he quotes scientists on almost every point he makes. That you think that he claims to be an expert simply indictates that you have never read on the subject in any depth.

He seems to offer a lot of conclusions based on "science" and apparently considers himself qualified to chose one scientist's conclusions over another's.

Its not an issue of, is this or that scientist more correct, it's an issue of whether you trust and rely upon the considerations and findings of the acknowledged leaders of the field with the support of more than 97% of the mainstream professionals working in the field, or you choose to reject them and go with the unpublished perspectives of an outlier professor who hasn't actively worked in the field in 20+ years and doesn't even agree with the few other outlier professors that reject and are rejected by the entire rest of the climate science field.

I'd like to see the data on your claim of more than 97% of the mainstream professionals working in the field.

 

[asterism]

Scientist's climate change predictions can be proved only if it happens. No amount of evidence will be sufficient because the required changes cost too much for something that hasn't been proven. I doubt very many people on the left or right would be willing to sacrifice today to save the planet a hundred years from now. People are just not that benevolent.

Scientist's climate change predictions can be proved only if it happens. No amount of evidence will be sufficient because the required changes cost too much for something that hasn't been proven. I doubt very many people on the left or right would be willing to sacrifice today to save the planet a hundred years from now. People are just not that benevolent.

"beneficient," but you are probably correct for the most part, this would be especially true if there were absolutely no harm until a century from now. The impacts, however, started quite some time ago and will only build and accelerate in frequency as time goes on. It is an exponential process and it won't stop in a century, it'll just be getting started. My only real concern is that we may have already waited to late to save the best parts, and by the time self-preservation motivations really kick in, it may be too late to do anything but prolong the agony.

I disagree. We banned DDT.

 

[Old Rocks]

He seems to offer a lot of conclusions based on "science" and apparently considers himself qualified to chose one scientist's conclusions over another's.

Its not an issue of, is this or that scientist more correct, it's an issue of whether you trust and rely upon the considerations and findings of the acknowledged leaders of the field with the support of more than 97% of the mainstream professionals working in the field, or you choose to reject them and go with the unpublished perspectives of an outlier professor who hasn't actively worked in the field in 20+ years and doesn't even agree with the few other outlier professors that reject and are rejected by the entire rest of the climate science field.

I'd like to see the data on your claim of more than 97% of the mainstream professionals working in the field.

97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming : Deltoid

 

[syrenn]

It means that someone who sets himself up as an expert in science does not understand as much as he claims to.

If you claim to be a scientific guru, you should at least have a basic competence in the subject.

Big hint.

He is a politician, not a scientist. An orator not a thinker.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Giving al gore crap for trusting the scientific fields expertice on sceintific matters is just halirious coming from a pack of cons.

Why do you people trust a handful of corporate paid scientists over the vast majority of them world wide?

Because you are partisn fools who can have your opinions bought with a little propaganda from a hand full of people.

Have you not heard about those e-mails admitting to the fraud........Admitted to the propoganda?

Algore is a damn fraud. Making boatloads o' money off the truly ignorant sheoples.

Further proving, there are many seriously stupid people out there.

 

[Old Rocks]

Have you not heard, all were exonerated of all of those specious charges?

 

[asterism]

...So 9 is okay by you?

9 political issues that need to be clarified, discussed and properly explained when this film is shown as part of required curriculm classes? Sure! I'm more than fine with that! I wish we had some national education laws in this nation that would allow judicial review of educational material and the ability to ferret out and highlight political bias in educational material and mandate that the presentation of such material be accompanied by guidelined discussions and explanations of the material. It might do away with a lot of the shennanigans we're seeing in places like Kansas, Texas and California.

I'm in agreement with and perfectly fine with the legal assessment of the science presented in the film:

“...are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world’s climate scientists...”(Paragraph 17)

“...Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate...” (Paragraph 22).

Not political issues, factual issues presented that are not supported by any scientific evidence.