Sounds like a quote from the man who sold the Elk Indians down the river.

That is what some people might accuse Al Gore of. If he were applying for a science job,. and he flicked me his film as a cv, I would tell him to do his research properly before he starts trying to convince me or any other serious scientist of his research abilities. Either way it does him no favours —one inaccuracy is enough but nine??

I come from New Zealand, and when I watched the film with my classmates we were surprise at this claim in particular: the film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Yes, because it is a false claim. I think he should do the right thing and re cut his film,and take out that claim.

The actual science of Global Warming, well, it’s not settled whether you like it or not. This is a fact, and no amount of fantasy is going to change that.

I know some people want to desperately believe that Global Warming is causing hurricanes and earthquakes etc etc…but in order for that to happen it requires one vital factor–rising temperatures. Are they rising? or staying the same, or cooling? What are the results over the last ten years?

If the temperatutes are rising it would be in favour of the AGW hypothesis, if they are lowering …

One thing is for certain I notice a lot of media are now reporting Global Warming as climate change. These are two different things, in order for man made climate change to be happening we first have to make sure that the temperatures are rising.

Remember the hypothesis is that rising temperatures cause climate change not global cooling causes climate change.

There are not two sides to every story. It’s time for conservatives to engage in the climate policy debate from a position of scientific fact, not anti-science nonsense. I’m sure Gore and the climate movement in general could benefit from conservative ideas for lowering carbon emissions (though I maintain that cap-and-trade is already firmly rooted in conservative ideology).

You asked, “how does global warming theory explain periods of cooling?”

First, no scientific theory can explain everything all of the time, that is just not the way it works. Newton explained the basic theory of gravitation centuries ago but physicists are still working out very important the details to this very day. A truly scientific theory always has holes (they just get smaller over time). It is only those with an anti-scientific bent who believe otherwise and try to use those holes to discredit science. Creationists do this all of the time.

Second, there is no “global warming theory”. There is a hypothesis that increasing concentrations of GHGs are trapping more solar energy in the Earth’s atmosphere. How that expresses itself in terms of weather is a matter of intense debate within the scientific community. Climatology and meteorology are not sciences the way chemistry or microbiology are. There are no laboratories where multiple earths are kept each with a concentration of GHG the resulting behaviors can be observed. The interactions of ocean, atmosphere, and the sun are extremely complex and difficult to model.

Third, some models do indeed predict cooling. As the arctic ice melts, it actually cools the oceans (while raising the sea level). This can indeed cause wide-scale cooling over an extended period of time. Additionally the current ice sheet around Greenland prevent the warm Gulf Stream from moving north and causes it to curve the east and south, warming places like Ireland. Should the ice sheets around Greenland retreat, there could be a change in the warm water circulation of the Gulf Stream, cooling some place, like Ireland.

You asked “If CO2 emissions have remained the same since 1998, or even increased, why was 1998 the warmest year on record?”

The answer is that the 2007 was not the warmest year on record, it is only the second warmest year on record.

http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/11/nasa-hansen-2007-second-warmest-year-ever-warmest-year-likely-by-2010/

2005 is actually the warmest year on record. However 2010 is expected to break that record.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html

Why is one year warmer than another, there are a lot variables, volcanic activity, El Niño- Southern Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, &c. However you will notice that the three hottest years on record world wide are all within ten years of each other, statistically a highly unlikely event.

I could go on and on. You of course, I noted earlier, know nothing on your own about this, you are just repeating what you have read not from scientist but conservative political sources.

Returning to your original posting, it is clearly you who are working on “blind faith” here.

The debate is over because there never was a debate. All there ever was, was a bunch of snake oil salesmen looking to make money on the backs of others.

“They’re the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you’re likely to believe in global warming and humankind’s contribution to it.”
(http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php)

Some people believe the world is flat, Elvis lives, and we never went to the moon. Not believing in man-made climate change is moving into that group as it should. I’m sure there are “right angle” responses to the reality of global climate change, I would love to learn more about them, but denying the problem isn’t going to help.

I take exception to the claim that the science is clear, e.g., how does global warming theory explain periods of cooling? If CO2 emissions have remained the same since 1998, or even increased, why was 1998 the warmest year on record? If the planet is indeed warming, the science evidence is far from conclusive that any such warming is due to man-made factors. The warming could be due to variations in the sunspot cycle.

Today the science really is clear. Science works by the accumulation of data, and the accumulated data overwhelmingly supports human-caused global climate change. For evidence, like peering through Galileo’s telescope, take a look at the link David posted, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2009/jul/23/arctic-sea-ice-photographs-us-geological-survey

Remember the 84 Reagan ad, there’s a bear in the woods. Well, today the bear is catastrophic climate change. And even if you disagree with 95% of climiate scientists (I think I have that number correct) “For some people the bear is easy to see. Others don’t see it at all. Some people say the bear is tame. Others say it’s vicious and dangerous. Since no one can really be sure who is right, isn’t it smart to be as strong as the bear?

I’m not sure I agree with your assertion that global warming has been debated or treated as a non-scientific term or concept by its proponents; if so, why would Gore continually state that the “science is settled”… Also, consensus of opinion isn’t the same as “science”. There was “consensus” in Galileo’s time that the sun revolved around the earth. When Galileo asserted the opposite, he was forced to recant.

From the Telegraph: “The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor’s, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: “it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition”.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html)