AL GORE caught in a lie

"31,486 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs "

ibrake, I think we could probably trade links and sources all day long. That's why I tend to stay away from threads about climate change; they simply turn into flame wars with either side armed with internet pages - at the end of the day, do you really think I could convince you that climate change is real and that humans play a role in it? I don't think you could convince me it's not and that we don't. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, but if you are interested I posted a bunch of links and my interview with a Nobel Prize winning climate scientist in my response near the bottom of this page.

how can u simply ignore the truth like that?

Ignore a truth like WHAT, ibrake? Don't you see my point? I can give you a million links to "truth" as well- scientific, peer reviewed truth that proves climate change is real. As I said, much of it is at the bottom of the page.

yes i saw most of them, but the point im trying to get across in this thread is that there isnt a scientific consensus on global warming.

Sigh. From Wiki:

"Formal scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. This does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]

Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. Some organisations hold non-committal positions."

...

A question which frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus. Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:

* American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[25]
* US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[78]
* Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[79]
* Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[80]
* American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus"
* Network of African Science Academies: “A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.” [21]
* International Union for Quaternary Research, 2008: "INQUA recognizes the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[82]
* Australian Coral Reef Society, 2006: "There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases"

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) So uh...yes there is.

how many scientists exactly?

Your not getting the point ibrake.

It doesnt matter a damn how many scientists. Im sure you noticed this in college, just because you get your degree doesnt mean you know much about it. Your opinion is noticed once you earn credibility in the field.

then im confused. what gives the scientists, who say theres a consensus, the credibility to do so?

How many scientists? I'm not sure. Let's start with the first group on the list, the AAAS - "Founded in 1848, AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals." Hmm. 262 affiliated SOCIETIES and ACADEMIES of science? How many scientists is THAT? How could I even find out? The AAAS is one of the biggest science organizations in the world.

Then there's the National Academy of Sciences: "The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes."

American Meteorological Society -"Founded in 1919, AMS has a membership of more than 14,000 professionals, professors, students, and weather enthusiasts."

The African Science Academies are under the larger InterAcademy Panel - "IAP has forged partnerships among its member institutions and works closely with other scientific organizations, including the InterAcademy Council (IAC), InterAcademy Medical Panel (IAMP), and International Council for Science (ICSU), IAP also cooperates with regional academies, such as the Federation of Asian Scientific Academies (FASAS), All European Academies (ALLEA), Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), European Academies' Science Advisory Council (EASAC), Association of Academies of Sciences in Asia (AASA), and the Caribbean Scientific Union (CSU), all of which serve as observers of IAP activities."

How many scientists is THAT?

I don't have a direct number for your question. What I can tell you is the majority of scientific organizations world wide agree that climate change is real and that humans play a large role in it. That is what I would call "scientific consensus."

He makes money from mining zinc on his land. so far, no one is disputing that. If that doesnt tell you he is a fraud than I dont know what it would take to prove it to you all

Don't you understand? This isn't about Al Gore personally, even though your premise for this entire attack on him is pretty flimsy. I'm not a Gore freak or anything but so what if he mistook the name of the scientist who told him that info- when he won the Peace Prize a lot of scientists won with him, there are a lot of people involved in this research, as all of my posts would inticate - but you haven't refuted any information. The question of Al Gore being a "fraud" doesn't make all climate science a fraud.

If you are caught in a lie anything you say from that point on must be suspect. Why no comment on his zinc mining?

Ihate-

I thought I'd ask you for a link... But you posted one already. So I checked it out. I went to the zinc section and out of 4 sources, 2 are "not found" and the 2 others are from 2000- not that it means their information may not be valid, but do you have any newer sources? The whole website your first link goes to was last updated in 2000!

So he made money from mining since 1975 up to 2000 and may still be doing it today. Cant say that he is. Cant say that he isnt. Dont know. Fact is he did and most likely still is.

why even bring it up then?

Agreed! No more doubting current for censoring.

Current's rating system is ran (mostly) by it's users. They allow practically anything to be posted, it's up to the users to verify the validity of the material they find.

I couldnt agree with you more. My hats off to current for even letting this story make it to their web site. For that alone they should get an award.

Is that the same integrity that allows their site to get clogged by identical or near identical stories, almost everyday? Yeah kudos for admitting, or allowing user to tell you things are messed up, but fix it already...

no, it merely hasn't happend yet.

@ BOMB

NO he lied. HE LIED and admitted he fudged a little. Children try to tell the moms they fudged. Adults know a lie when they tell it. He knew what he was doing and recanted as soon as he was caught. BIG differance.

jan you know i love you right??...because i have to say you dont have to defend al gore's every move my dear.He is trying to over push it to scare people to love the earth.He should accomplish his mission in the same manner as you..simply presenting facts as they are...and not for profit.

namaste

I'm just setting the record straight. And I will defend him when I believe it is warranted. You have no way of knowing when the Arctic will be ice free, do you? Are you a scientist? How do you know that Dr. wasn't intimidated at that conference into renegging on his claim? Haters are the ones IMO here who need to step back a bit and actually read.

so does Al Gore have some sort of secret knowledge we dont know about?

Possible.

NO he has no powers other than what the foolish american sheeple bestow on him.

He is a liar and a fraud. Jan why didnt you comment on why he makes money year after year from mining zinc on his land. Did you not see that or can you not explain it?

At first I thought you were joking. Then it clicked that you seriously believe that Al Gore invented the internet. *Points to your head* What's it like in there?

WTF are you talking about. No one here said Al Gore invented the internet. At least I didnt if you are talking to me.

Take your Al Gore obsession and hate and shove it up your a88.....MY Al Gore obsession???? I posted ONE story about Al Gore and IM obssessed with him.

Thats almost kinda funny coming from the gal who calls herself JanforGore.

Nice post!

Thank you

TRUTH.

and yet your commenting on site/tv network...

and yet you fail to have a point.

is that a comment Cal or what? yes I still post so the truth gets out. Is that a bad thing? does the truth hurt........OUCH if it does this one must really sting.

well, if the ice is still there in 5 years, then you might be able to make that claim. Your only evidence is you found soem scientist who failed to actually disagree with him and merely stated he didn't know where he was getting his study. And for this you call him a liar.

I occasionally complain about and ridicule the pot legalization crowd on this site making desperate and ridiculous leaps of logic to defend a point so poorly that they actually serve as an example of why their proposal is a bad idea.

Congradulations you are now the new leader in the race for the top epic fail smacktard argument.

congrats to you too because that scientist I found is the one Gore himself was quoting as his source. Looks like you need to read a bit of the article before you make ridiculus statements.

AND FREE THE WEED

"I occasionally complain about and ridicule the pot legalization crowd on this site making desperate and ridiculous leaps of logic to defend a point so poorly that they actually serve as an example of why their proposal is a bad idea."

and each time i correct you