Gore says 'Climategate' emails taken out of context

[kpete]

Source: AFP

Gore says 'Climategate' emails taken out of context

(AFP) – 2 hours ago

WASHINGTON — Former US vice president turned environmental crusader Al Gore weighed in on "Climategate" Wednesday, saying the emails at the center of the row were being taken out of context.

"Well, they took a few phrases out of context. These are private e-mails, more than 10 years old, and they've tried to blow it up into something that it's really not," Gore said in an interview with CNN.

The emails, intercepted from scientists at Britain's University of East Anglia, a top center for climate research, have been seized upon by skeptics as evidence that the experts twisted data in order to dramatize global warming.

Some of the thousands of messages expressed frustration at the scientists' inability to explain what they described as a temporary slowdown in warming and discussed ways to counter the campaigns of climate naysayers.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hziZUTYDhEiaCIfcXUfSSBuOqP2Q

[LiberalFighter]

1. Should be easy to explain the slowdown.

It's a lot easier to collect data that is available here on Earth. It's more difficult to analyze data from out in space that can cause a slowdown.

We are not at the mercy of just what happens here on Earth. We have to be concerned with what happens out in space too.

[WriteDown]

2. Is he going to Copenhagen?

:shrug:

[tabatha]

3. yes.

[WriteDown]

5. When?

?

[tabatha]

15. link

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/gore-cancels-copenhagen-book-event/

Al Gore has canceled an event in Copenhagen, site of the coming United Nations climate summit, where he was to give a presentation promoting his new book about global warming, “Our Choice.”

More than 3,000 Danes had paid for tickets to see the former vice president, who has made fighting climate change a life cause, according to Birlengske Tidende, a Danish publication. However, they will get their money back, the paper said.

Mr. Gore will still be present in Copenhagen for the climate talks, according to Kalee Krieder, a spokeswoman.

“He is giving a speech, at the Bella Center — the site of the summit — on Dec. 15,” she wrote in an e-mail message. “Unfortunately, because of all the breaking issues around the treaty talks, we did have to cancel an event the following day.” Tickets to the canceled event had started at $45, she said.

Dec. 16, the day of Mr. Gore’s canceled event, is the start of the ministerial segments of the conference.

[Deja Q]

113. Will he jet-pool with others, or will it be a private jet... again...

?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[marshall]

7. He shouldn't even address the issue of the emails

Especially if he gets anything wrong in the details, no matter whether it's minor or major. It just gives more fodder to be used against him.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[totodeinhere]

129. Maybe not but someone needs to make it perfectly clear that those emails are horse shit. n/t

[notesdev]

8. Nothing out of context in the program comments

artificial adjustments are exactly that... and oops they can't be undone because the raw data is lost, how convenient.

Gore's scam is exposed, over. All that money he was banking on, slipping out of his grasp.

Stepping up the propaganda isn't going to convince China and India, and there's no way to put together a credible anti-CO2 effort without having those two nations on board.

[timeforpeace]

9. Excellent, truthful post. And that it fell apart on the brink of success has to make him furious.

[amborin]

149. nothing has fallen apart; there is overwhelming data showing human caused warming

[tabatha]

16. The raw data is NOT lost.

[scipan]

18. China and India are already convinced.

No Gore scam.
No "artificial adjustments".
Every single thing you say is wrong.

Get a different news source.

[eppur_se_muova]

19. Actually the raw data is being posted on the Web for all to see ..

sorry your little troll theory had to die such a quick death.

London, England (CNN) -- The UK's weather service, the Met Office is to publish station temperature records that make up the global land surface temperature record.

Professor John Mitchell, director of climate science at the Met Office told CNN: "We are releasing the data to reassure people that climate data is sound."

The data includes information from more than 1000 stations worldwide and will be published online next week.

The Met Office said it was publishing a subset of the full HadCRUT record of global temperatures -- that's one of a handful of global temperature data sets that underpin the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/12/05/climate.data.met.office/

[Psephos]

20. A subset?

Where is the full set?

[Viking12]

22. It will all be there. They have to obtain permssion from the data owners.

In any event, it's all available at NOAA-NCDC.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/

[eppur_se_muova]

82. Thanks for the link. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. It was all collected by other organisations

and they have to get their poermissions to release the rest.

Which is also why that data was never actually 'lost' by CRU in the first place; they got a copy of it from other people, and didn't keep their own copy of the originals when they moved office.

[WriteDown]

29. The CRU said specifically that their data would be impossible

to replicate. Several people have also been fired due to what was contained in the emails. You are speaking about other data, but the CRU's dataset was considered to be the origin of some of the top research in the field.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. I haven't seen anything about anyone being fired yet

My understanding is that the data was a copy - as in this quote from a Sunday Times article:

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/11/more_heat_less_light_in_cru_ha.html

(Link to the original article - but Murdoch's Times has stopped serving me in the UK with past articles, presumably because they want me to pay for them in the future, so I can't check the context: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece )

The CRU doesn't man the weather stations around the world. That's done by universities, government organisations etc. in those countries. They produced that data, not the CRU. And they also gave it to other people, such as NASA.

If you're refering to some other dataset, what is it?

[WriteDown]

37. The original article

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

"The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible. "

Paired with:

"The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data."

I'll have to check on those firings. They may have been mere resignations.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. Still, no more description of this dataset you're talking about

As I said, I can't access the Sunday Times article. The quotes so far from it are about the copies of the data from the weather stations. What is the dataset for which the CRU was the origin?

[WriteDown]

41. Its whatever RAW data they used....

it could have been from anywhere. It could have been cherry-picked, it could have been bad data, it could have been anything. Now no one will ever know. Regardless of the reason, this looks very very bad. Especially when paired with emails from people wanting to keep this data out of the hands of others.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. OK, so no CRU dataset, then

because the raw data is replicated at NASA etc., and hopefully by the people who took the measurements in the first place.

Not a data problem, then.

[WriteDown]

45. Replicated?

How do you know that the CRU projections were based on NASA's data? The CRU was the leader in the field and their models and projections were considered paramount. Now, they are in the same league as cold fusion from a few years ago.

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. No, they were based on the weather station records

but NASA's projections were also based on the weather station data. Someone who works for NASA says the data should be archived by theose who took the measurements.

From when the Competitive Enterprise Institute started complaining about the throwing away of some data at CRU (before the hacking of the CRU system):

First, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Pat Michaels are arguing that Phil Jones and colleagues at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU) willfully, intentionally, and suspiciously “destroyed” some of the raw surface temperature data used in the construction of the gridded surface temperature datasets.

Second, the CEI and Pat Michaels contend that the CRU surface temperature datasets provided the sole basis for IPCC “discernible human influence” conclusions.

Both of these arguments are incorrect. First, there was no intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that, over 20 years ago, the CRU could not have foreseen that the raw station data might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI and Pat Michaels. Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid efforts by other scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley Centre-based estimates of global-scale changes in near-surface temperature. In fact, a key point here is that other groups—primarily at the NOAA National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), but also in Russia—WERE able to replicate the major findings of the CRU and UK Hadley Centre groups. The NCDC and GISS groups performed this replication completely independently. They made different choices in the complex process of choosing input data, adjusting raw station data for known inhomogeneities (such as urbanization effects, changes in instrumentation, site location, and observation time), and gridding procedures. NCDC and GISS-based estimates of global surface temperature changes are in good accord with the HadCRUT data results.

The second argument—that “discernible human influence” findings are like a house of cards, resting solely on one observational dataset—is also invalid. The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) considers MULTIPLE observational estimates of global-scale near-surface temperature changes. It does not rely on HadCRUT data alone—as is immediately obvious from Figure 2.1b of the TAR, which shows CRU, NCDC, and GISS global-mean temperature changes.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/phil-jones-and-ben-santer-comment-on-cei/

'Cold fusion'? Be serious. The CRU data and conclusions have not had any real doubt cast on them. The ethics of a few people there, who considered trying to exclude contrarian scientists from teh debate, are in doubt. Those individuals may be in trouble. The science is not.

If you're going to spout bollocks like 'cold fusion!!!!', there will be little point in talking to you. Please, let's keep this as a real discussion.

[Birthmark]

88. Spot on.

It's so refreshing to see reality in these threads.

[WriteDown]

92. Impossible to know...

since the records were destroyed. Could have been based on the psychic friends network for all we know.

[rayofreason]

33. You mean like these data?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

Something fishy down under.

[kestrel91316]

63. That's not a data source. That's an anti-science flat-earther blog.

[rayofreason]

71. What an idiotic and ignorant statement....

...to refer to the owner of the blog as "an anti-science flat-earther"

You have no evidence of that at all, but I guess evidence doesn't matter to some people.

Let me quote from his blog where he describes himself (see - http://wattsupwiththat.com/about/)

While I have a skeptical view of certain climate issues, I consider myself “green” in many ways, and I promote the idea of energy savings and alternate energy generation. Unlike many who just talk about it, I’ve put a 10KW solar array on my home, plus a 125 KW solar array on one of our local schools when I was a school trustee. I’ve retrofitted my home with CFL’s and better insulation, as well as installed timer switches on many of our most commonly used lights.

I also drive an electric car for my daily around town routine.

I encourage others to do the same when it comes to efficient use of energy and energy conservation.

His list of links on the RHS contains both pro and anti AGW sites.

And the specific link I posted was an analysis of the "homogenization" of the northern Australian temperature records, which is quite relevant to the topic of "original data." Doesn't it bother you that the original data do not show what the IPCC graph showed unless they are significantly "corrected?" Wouldn't you like to know the reasons for the specific corrections and have an open debate about the validity of those assumptions? That is what science is about, and that is what has been missing.

So my original statement stands - THERE IS SOMETHING FISHY DOWN UNDER

[Thor_MN]

32. Right wing employed "Scientists" are paid to prove a predetermined result

So the Right Wing assumes that all Scientists operate that way, that someone must be paying them to find evidence to support a pet theory. It's not conceivable to them that real scientists study data and develop theories to fit the data, not the other way around.

[Birthmark]

87. What a post.

Amazing. In fact, the level of unreality and misrepresentations in your post may represent some sort of record. What artificial adjustments? What published science did they appear in? What data is "lost?" Surely, you must have some idea?

Gore's scam? How did Gore convince scientists across multiple disciplines to publish anything less than the truth? Do you have any evidence?

You've posted a huuuuge, but very thin conspiracy theory that would necessitate the cooperation of thousands of scientists, not just climatologists, either. It's a nonsensical assertion. The Moon Landing conspiracy theorists can boast of a better constructed theory, though they're about equal in validity.

The only thing you probably got right was that there can't be a credible effort without China and India.

[timo]

12. hypocrite

he just wants us to do as he says, not as he does, typical politician dickhead!!

[karynnj]

17. Have you forgotten which forum you are writing this end?

TROLL!!!

[kestrel91316]

64. Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay.

[timo]

78. oh noes

why wouldnt I ???

you dont see a little hypocrisy in Gore tellling the world that global warming is killing the planet and we all need to do our part to change for the better, but he still continues to live in a big ol kilowatt squandering house, flying around burning all kinds of fuel up in private planes, and setting himself up as the king of carbon credits?

I am all for reducing and recycling, and cutting down on waste, but if he really wants to get his message across then walk it like he talks it would be a lot more impressive, in my humble opinion!!

[hatrack]

112. And if he lived in a fucking cave and killed deer with his bare hands and ate it raw . .

So as not to cause carbon-related impact from building fires, you'd refer to him as some survivalist weirdo - and demand to know why we should care about some cave-dwelling psycho, right?

:eyes:

[timo]

117. uhhh

hmmmm, maybe depends on how the wood for the fires was gathered? was it old growth forrest he cut down? or is it a sustainable forrestry program where wood is harvested and trees are re planted in a responsible way,or salvage from blow down and or insect damaged trees? and as long as he harvested the deer in a humane way and so as not to impact the overall well being and population of the herd I prolly wouldnt bat an eye!!

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JonQ]

50. Don't question him you big oil shill!

You probably doubted that the center of the earth is millions of degrees warm too.

[BennyD]

91. I did hear one of our own the other day refer to

the "4-corners of the earth." We have some flat Earthers on ours side as well.

[LanternWaste]

109. I imagine it really depends

"We have some flat Earthers on ours side as well....4-corners of the earth"

I imagine it really depends if one allows for context in any given statement (or e-mail), or simply takes any and all statements (or e-mails) as literal and without room for interpretation.

[and-justice-for-all]

11. Of course the are taken out of context...

People pretending to know what they were discussing are damn liars.

[Viking12]

13. See posts 8 & 9 for example

[JonQ]

55. You mean like a political scientist

pretending to be an actual scientist?

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JonQ]

69. Maybe the mods aren't as concerned as you are

with silencing dissent?

I have to ask, what do you have to lose that is making you so angry and irrational when not everyone falls in to line with your beliefs?

[rayofreason]

Ah yes....

....another well reasoned statement.

At least you are consistent.

[JonQ]

75. Also, do you believe that Al Gore is a scientist?

[and-justice-for-all]

84. No, but the people he works with are...nt

[JonQ]

148. Were they the ones who told him

that the center of the earth is millions of degrees, or that a few kilometers down it's hot enough to generate energy?

[and-justice-for-all]

85. I find that Gore delivers the message in a clear manner...

the general public does not get Scientific terms; for example the term "Theory" in scientific circles doesn't have the same meaning as it does in the general public.

[AngryAmish]

14. THat should settle that

If there is a person who is fair and impartial on the topic of global warming, it is Al Gore. I'm series.

[JonQ]

76. Why would he lie?

He certainly doesn't have any financial or personal stake in any of this.

[AngryAmish]

79. He is totally unimpeachable on the subject.

I'm cereal.

[JonQ]

80. Just cereal

or super-cereal?

[Illuminated]

102. That's the funniest thing I've read all day..

[Uncle Joe]

21. Why is 40% of the north polar ice-cap gone? Three million years is a long time.

Some people will say the Earth "naturally goes through cooling and warming cycles" with absolutely no regard to the growing impact of the approximate 200 year old Unnatural Industrial Age on any potential natural cycle.

I know some people don't want to believe that humanity's huge and growing industrial footprint is having a major impact on the Earth's fragile Biosphere, but you can't keep your head in the sand forever. Either we change or the Earth will change us and if the latter takes place it won't be for the better.

<snip>

"The north polar ice-cap is melting before our very eyes. It's been the size of the continental United States for most of the last three million years and now suddenly 40 percent of it is gone and the rest of it is expected to disappear within five, 10, 15 years."

<snip>

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[WriteDown]

23. Better question...

How old is the polar ice cap?

[Uncle Joe]

24. I don't know the exact age of it's birth, but I do know it's a hell of a lot older

than the Unnatural Industrial Age.

[WriteDown]

25. May want to check into the actual age....

They are pretty young. Unless you believe the fundie age of the Earth.

[Uncle Joe]

27. The part that remains frozen is older, there is seasonal expansion and shrinkage, but

according to Wikipedia the sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km, that means seasonal ice has normally changed by 25%, now we're talking about 40% reduction, with the probability of it being totally gone within the next few years or decades, to my knowledge that's never occurred at least since the advent of the Unnatural Industrial Age.

If you know of the last time this has occurred, please share it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_cap#North_Pole


"North Pole

See also: Arctic shrinkage

Earth's north pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean. Portions of the ice that don't melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 3–4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about a meter thick. The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km². In addition, the Greenland ice sheet covers about 1.71 million km² and contains about 2.6 million km³ of ice.<2>

While the International Panel on Climate Change 2001 report predicted that the North polar ice cap would last to 2100 in spite of global warming caused by climate change, the dramatic reduction in the size of the ice cap during the northern summer of 2007 has led some scientists to estimate that there will be no ice at the North Pole by 2030 with devastating effects on the environment.<3>

Other scientists such as Wieslaw Maslowski, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, estimate that there will be no summer ice by as soon as 2013. He argues that this projection is already too conservative as his dataset did not include the minima of 2005 and 2007.<4>"

[WriteDown]

28. Still..

You should research the actual age. I'll give you a hint. The Earth was a balmy tropical "paradise" when the dinosaurs roamed.

[Uncle Joe]

30. Without researching I know you're talking about at least 65 million years ago,

and yes that is impressive.

I was just referring to the article as to how long it's been the aproximate size of the U.S.

<snip>

"The north polar ice-cap is melting before our very eyes. It's been the size of the continental United States for most of the last three million years and now suddenly 40 percent of it is gone and the rest of it is expected to disappear within five, 10, 15 years."

<snip>

[WriteDown]

31. I believe its about 25 million years old...

And the Earth was much warmer before then. Were we going through global cooling then? And why? Will the Earth return to its original temperatures and what will be the consequences. If another Younger Dryas(a Youngerer Dryas :)) happens, what will we do? Should we try to prevent it?

[Uncle Joe]

34. Then your hint on post 28 is incorrect because the dinosaurs weren't roaming 25 million years ago,

they had long been extinct.

Regarding your questions, if you're running a fever, should you go to sleep in a sauna?

The Earth runs through natural cooling and warming cycles, but I believe disregarding the impact from the Unnatural Industrial Age in magnifying those cycles is ludicrous to the point of species suicidal.

[WriteDown]

35. No, my hint holds....

The Earth was much warmer before the ice caps formed was the point. Was the Younger Dryas a natural cycle or due to man's use of fire? That was a sudden temperature change with global implications.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. Are you saying a return to conditions before anything approaching a human evolved would be OK?

Saying "it was warmer X millions years ago" is not particularly relevant to an attempt to keep over 6 million people going in something like civilisation.

The Younger Dryas may well have been caused by the pulse of fresh water from North America - see http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/arch/examples.shtml . If a similar thing happened now, putting at risk millions of lives, I'd suggest we do what we could to save those lives. I suspect you would too.

[WriteDown]

47. No...

I'm just saying that the Earth WILL return to those conditions at some point. That is all.

Interfering with nature can be tricky. Many think we should try to seed the ocean with iron particles to create algae blooms that would eliminate C02. Sounds like a good idea to you?

[Uncle Joe]

52. We are interfering with nature, what do you believe the Industrial Age is?

Every time you drive your car, motorbike, jet ski, use your television, computer, pretty much everything attached to the Unnatural Industrial Age interferes with nature.

So the question becomes what are the best ways to mitigate that damage and/or interference to sustainability on this tiny blue marble.

Human population has grown to the point that we must find sustainable means of survival and energy is most certainly a key, we can't keep living the way we have without paying tragic consequences for our foolishness.

[WriteDown]

57. I think you know...

I meant intentionally interfering with a natural phenomenon. Like if we decided that Florida should be the "snowdrift state."

First thing that obviously must go is computers and the internet. Think of how much pollution computer batteries and the use of electricity causes. Ipods and cell phones would obviously be next on that list. :)

[Uncle Joe]

60. We adapt by whatever means are best and necessary for survival of the species.

Again my point is we are intentionally interfering with a natural phenomenon, now if you wish to throw the baby out the bath water have at it.

I prefer more plausible ideas; building a smart grid and converting to solar, wind, and geothermal energy, if computers could be made more environmentally friendly, I'm all for that as well, but on their behalf, computers and the Internet can shave off the burning of carbon from the reduced use of transportation.

Furthermore if we convert to sustainable means of energy, the use of electricity shouldn't create the same adverse cost to the environment, it's the burning of carbon that matters the most.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. Like building a sea wall?

If it's a quick way to save lives, then we should do it. So if we thought we could dam a freshwater lake that threatened to plunge the world into a cold period, yes, we should do it. Saving millions of lives is a Good Thing.

[WriteDown]

93. Excellent example....

Building a sea wall generally has large erosion consequences in other areas. The other solution would be not to live so close to the shore.

[kestrel91316]

67. You don't consider belching out millions of tons of CO2 for 200+ years to be interfering???

Oy. Teh stoopid.

[WriteDown]

74. May want to look up the word...

"intentional."

[Uncle Joe]

46. What is your point regarding this entire exchange between us, that global warming will

produce a warm Earth paradise and that humankind in spite of numbering well over 6 billion with all it's industrial creations continuously spewing greenhouse gases in to the atmosphere isn't affecting the Earth's biosphere in an adverse manner; that would be extremely detrimental to our species?

You compare modern day human impact to that of our fraction of a number tribal days 12,000 year ago; when we were using contemporary carbon for burning in campfires to that of today with the digging up of carbon sequestered for tens to hundreds of millions of years in the ground and burning it 24/7 at industrial levels as if this were the same thing?

I believe you're comparing apples to oranges to the tenth power.

[WriteDown]

48. Not at all..

See posts 44 and 47.

[Thor_MN]

40. You do understand that there is a difference between natural and man-made?

The Younger Dryas was a cool period of obvious natural origin, considering that there was no industrial activity 13 thousand years ago. If you maintain that the current climate change is natural, please provide your evidence of changing solar intensity, volcanic atmospheric changes, comet/meteor strike, pixie dust, whatever. It is undeniable that climate change is occurring and the most likely source is man-made atmospheric change. I'm more than open minded, if you have another cause that can explain it, bring it out.

The Younger Dryas brought the extinction of many species in North America. Do you mean to suggest we should give it a whirl, see what happens? Even if, for arguements sake, it is natural, should we just lie down and say "What the hell, the kids can move to where the weather is better."

[WriteDown]

44. Obvious?

Its theoretical, but I wouldn't say obvious.

You say undeniable? Theoretical science is NEVER undeniable.

We should be trying to clean up the Earth, there is zero doubt about that, but some of the current doomsday talk seems motivated more by greed and bad science than actual concern.

Also, how do we know when interfering with nature is okay?

[kestrel91316]

68. We environmentalists are greedy, all right. We are greedy for enough

food to stay living, enough drinkable water to do same, unflooded ground beneath our feet, a home that we need not flee so frequently that it doesn't qualify as a home, and ecosystems intact enough that we can sleep at night rather than suffering nightmares about the millions of species we needlessly made extinct. So yes, we're greedy.

[Thor_MN]

83. Yes obvious, show me sign of 13000 year old industy.

Whatever caused the Younger Dryas wsa natural. The climate change we are currently experiencing (you are going to deny that polar ice and glaciers are melting?) most likely explanation is man made industrial change to the atmosphere. Like I said, point us in the direction of another cause if you want to claim otherwise.

The bad science is the crap that the right wing and industry pays for. Shallow thinking on their part makes them think that all science is the same as what the pay for.

As for knowing when interfering is OK, I'm saying we need to stop interfering, you are proposing to continue interfering. Please justify that.

[WriteDown]

94. You know this based on temperature readings from that time?

Particulate matter from man's use of fire and candles was the cause. Surely, you know that.

[Thor_MN]

145. Good one, funny image. You ever going to bother to answer any questions?

Instead of just deflecting and going off on tangents?

[WriteDown]

146. What questions?

I think we need to seed the ocean immediately with iron shavings to create algae blooms. We can cure global warming overnight.

[JonQ]

54. Climate change prior to industrial revolution

obviously natural in origin.

Climate change after industrial revolution, obviously manmade.

Since we have established that the earth goes through rapid periods of warming and cooling on it's own, doesn't that suggest that tying this one entirely to human activity is a bit premature? If we go through normal heating and cooling cycles it seems inevitable that we'd go through one after people arrived on the scene.

[depakid]

58. A clue for the clueless

the issue (and the unprecedented danger) is in the rate of change.

I know, it's one of those math and science thingys that sometimes confuses Americans.

[JonQ]

61. That is the issue, yes

that is in fact part of the theory presented.

However, given that reliable thermometers are a fairly new thing (and no one was really doing a global survey on the climate until even more recently) we've had to rely on what are called "proxies" to infer global temperatures prior to this. With me so far?

These proxies are subject to much debate. Especially tree ring data which has been shown to not relate to global temperatures the way their models predicted they should. However, they still used those models to estimate the temperatures prior to the 1900s based on that tree ring data.

Now, can you see the issue here?

[depakid]

70. Rapid rates of change associated with higher greenhouse gas concentrations

(compunded by positive feedback loops) lead to mass extinctions. That's a fact, Jack- and it's the bottom line.

The rest of this business about tree ring data- whether it matches up precisely or not, etc., leads to obfuscation, denialism, conspiracy theory- and becomes an excuse for inaction (or worse).

[JonQ]

72. Saying that it is linked to mans work

requires that those models based around that questionable data be accepted without question. You did see how some could have concern with the way that data was created?

"(compunded by positive feedback loops) lead to mass extinctions. That's a fact, Jack- and it's the bottom line."

Question is not, is massive climate change bad, but rather what role do we have in it. A meteor strike would likewise lead to mass extinctions, but I'd be skeptical if someone tried to spend billions of dollars to alter human behavior to avoid such a fate. Proving the link between us and the event is key. Can you agree on that?

"The rest of this business about tree ring data- whether it matches up precisely or not, etc., leads to obfuscation, denialism, conspiracy theory- and becomes an excuse for inaction (or worse)."

So their materials and methods, mathematical models, and adjustments only distract from the "real science" eh? Here's where it became obvious you are not in any way a scientist. Those things are important. If the predictions are based on a model that is flawed those predictions cannot be considered valid.
If the model is based on data that may be flawed that model cannot be considered valid. Saying we should ignore the data, and the model, but keep the predictions is . . . well, insane.

[depakid]

77. The evidence is OVERWHELMING -and is compiled through multiple means

and data sets.

As well as multiple models.

All point clearly to anthropogenic global warming (and associated feeback loops). This is all well settled- to the point of scientific consensus.

Past events- with rapid rates of change have occurred before- with dire results to biodiversity. No reason whatsoever to think that won't happen again.

Your arguments here remind me very much of what I see on the gun forum- with people demanding perfect data in every instance before they'll even consider the obvious- that guns in the house make the household more dangerous and more likely to experience a tragedy than those without.

Same sort of obfuscation via some few minutae- missing the bigger picture entirely.

[JonQ]

81. A thing I've noticed

about climate hysterics is that they always go back to "the data is overwhelming" argument. Which oddly enough is also used to discredit data that runs counter to their claims.

"All point clearly to anthropogenic global warming (and associated feeback loops). This is all well settled- to the point of scientific consensus. "

About that consensus . . . http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

"Past events- with rapid rates of change have occurred before- with dire results to biodiversity. No reason whatsoever to think that won't happen again."

What caused those past events? Stone age coal plants?

"Your arguments here remind me very much of what I see on the gun forum- with people demanding perfect data in every instance before they'll even consider the obvious- that guns in the house make the household more dangerous and more likely to experience a tragedy than those without. "

Actually yes, there are plenty of similarities. Gun opponents often try to pass off flawed research as legit then claim a consensus (everyone knows guns are the leading cause of . . . ) where none exists.

"Same sort of obfuscation via some few minutae- missing the bigger picture entirely."

If the minutia were used to form that bigger picture? What then?

[Birthmark]

89. So the previous instances were caused by magic?

Or is this one? Because right now, our choices are basically human activity-caused, or some magical or mystical process since known natural possibilities have been excluded.

So, what are you peddling -magic or mystery?

[WriteDown]

95. The Younger Dryas was magic....

Merlin cast spell which caused rapid climate change. I believe the CRU has the data proving this.

[JonQ]

100. They have the data, sure

but they won't share it with anyone. Says there's no compelling public interest to make it available to anyone.

[Birthmark]

108. Truth means nothing to you at all, does it? :)

[WriteDown]

111. I remember when the truth was...

that breaking the speed barrier was impossible. Its too bad, they're would be a lot of effective uses if we could do that.

[Birthmark]

119. The "speed" barrier?

Did you perhaps mean the sound barrier?

No matter, what has that to do with anything? The <b>impossibility</b>, assuming that word was ever really used, certainly wouldn't have been posited as "truth" --at least not by anyone relevant in the field.

Impossibilities in science haven't fared terribly, though, and the analogy is a poor one in the discussion at hand.

[WriteDown]

121. Of course....

Combined speed of sound with sound barrier. Sorry about that. I am just referring to the old "consensus." Do you deny that there wasn't consensus that the sound barrier couldn't be broken? There was also "consensus" that the Earth was the center of the Universe at one time. Good times.

[Birthmark]

126. I have no idea if such a consensus ever existed.

Do you have any evidence that that was the case?

But to some extent it didn't matter since someone kept *working* on the problem, and probably published their results in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. Whoever that was didn't sit back, nitpicking at the irrelevant, and shouting, "Nuh-uh!!!" at the top of their little lungs. They dragged their asses into the lab and got to work.

Denialists, by contrast, are almost wholly unpublished. Even those few that do publish get rejected in the review process that occurs after publication. There's a reason for that. Their work doesn't hold up.

(Btw, I wasn't picking on the "speed" comment, I just wanted to make sure that that was what you meant.)

[WriteDown]

128. Spoken about here....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2412barrier.html

Proven in the air, not in a lab.

I think Galileo had trouble getting published too, but his heliocentric view was just too crazy and went against consensus.

[JonQ]

99. Did magic cause those previous instances?

Well if we're to believe your tact, that it's either human activity or magic, then yes. All previous climate change that occurred before the industrial revolution was caused by magic.

The science is settled!

[Birthmark]

110. Yes, whine.

That will distract from the fact that there is no natural explanation for the current warming that doesn't include human activity. That is, it will distract from the facts unless someone is uncharitable enough to point that you can't address the cause of the warming in any substantive fashion.

And, yes, the *basic* science is settled --human activity is causing a LOT of CO2, a known GHG, to stay in the atmosphere, primarily through emissions and deforestation. GHGs, unsurprisingly, will trap heat. Yep. That's settled.

There is still plenty to learn, but none of it is at all likely to change those basic facts.

But like the creationists, you can always hope.

[depakid]

90. A thing I've noticed about rationalizers

Is that they're fundamentally inacapable of accepting reality- to the ponit where reasonable folks just have to shake their heads and look to DSM IV to explain it.

If it can be explained.

Also- and it bears mentioning- it tends to run strongest (and be reinforced more) in certain regions.

Same ones that are backwards ass in every other area.

In other words- primative and regressive. Irrationally fearful of all soarts of things.

How about we not mince words-

Dumb fucks who never had an original thought (or wanted one) in their lives- but are just sorry assed followers who let websites dictate to them how to think. 'Cause actual thinking- with your own is so hard ya know.

Your writing over time has indicated very clearly who you are- and so let's let it stand at that.

<edited as I thought better of some of what I originally said>

[WriteDown]

96. So people who question "consensus" are followers?

Interesting. :rofl:

[JonQ]

98. I've noticed this projection before

questioning the established doctrine makes you a mindless sheep.

A recent one, and my personal favorite, questioning that we're all going to die from global warming by 2020 makes you the equivalent of an apocalypse cult.

[LanternWaste]

118. Much like those who believe...

Much like those who believe the forces of gravity exists are just "sheep"...

[Birthmark]

120. No, they are thieves.

They are attempting to steal belief from others rather than earn it with the hard work it would take. Different thieves have different motives, but they are all thieves.

[fascisthunter]

115. mental illness could be a factor here too

when somebody states the same shit ad nauseum even though there is so much factual evidence out there already disproving a laymen's know-nothing right wing theory, the one has to wonder if the individual is a bit off his/her rocker.

Just think how delluded one must be to disagree and think they know better than the global science community, yet believe a bunch of right wing anti-science propagandists. I'll go with the global scientific community, thanks.

[WriteDown]

122. Exactly!

Like when some questioned that the sound barrier could be broken when the global community clearly had consensus that it could not. Those people should have been shot and the bodies burned to deter others.

[depakid]

125. Regional differences leading to reinforcement of certain sorts of ideas plays a role

as one can see from the profiles of posters.

I've found this readily apparent on criminal justice threads- so much so that you can predict- within a much higher probability than chance where in the nation various sorts of takes are likely to originate.

[WriteDown]

130. Kind of like if you live in Virginia you want to shoot people in

classrooms?

[depakid]

131. More likely support for draconian punishment

and an almost obsessive need to find stories to outrage about.

Fear driven stuff, when it comes down to it.

[Illuminated]

103. Past events? Were they caused by mankind?

2 points:

1: Science is never settled. Science is a continually evolving mass. If the raw data is eventually produced and the evidence shows that there is no AGW, or that mankind's effect is minimal at best will you accept the result. Never forget you personal skepticism, since some people involved with AGW have huge financial stakes in AGW becoming accepted maybe their motives may not be entirely pure. Which leads me to my next point.

2: This whole discussion smacks of religion. Beliefs, dogma, rituals, high-priests. If you dont believe you are an athiest, if you hold the wrong beliefs you are a heretic, contradictions that are not able to be reconciled in the holy books are glossed over. The fierceness and personal attacks that the AGW proponents use in defending the indefensible remind me of the same tactics used by bible-beaters (who I cant stand either.

The biggest crime, however, would be that if AGW is real and the latest scandal helped delay or derail effective measure to control it.

The second biggest crime would be if they faked data and results for personal gain at the expense of the world.

Moral: Dont take shortcuts and be totally open with your data, methods, and results and let the chips fall where the may.

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. But we were already in a warm period

and now it's getting even warmer. So, no, it's not "premature" to say this is man-made. We know we've increased CO2 to a level about that in any time in the past half million years. We know that carbon diocxide is a greenhouse gas. We know the temperature has gone up suddenly, on geological scales, and there is no other decent explanation for this. This is not a "normal heating and cooling cycle".

[WriteDown]

97. Considering that temperature data has only been taken for

a little over 150 years and 1/3 of that data is now in question is now in serious question, we know very little. We also knew how to create cold fusion a couple of years ago.

[JonQ]

101. You're focusing on the wrong thing here

the data isn't the issue, or the validity of how it was constructed, or the model used to estimate past temperatures or account for local variances.

All those are secondary to the most important aspect of scientific research: popular opinion. And right now lots of people believe it, so the science is settled!

[muriel_volestrangler]

106. You're talking bollocks

The Central England Temperature records go back 350 years.

The data is not in question, as we have already established in this thread. The original data is held by those who took it; NASA and NOAA have their copies of the original data; CRU don't have the data they rejected.

You know very little. The scientists know quite a lot, thankfully.

You know how to raise red herrings, however. You're a master at that.

[WriteDown]

107. And the Younger Dryas was 12K years ago...

Anyone else remember when it was impossible to break the speed of sound?

[Uncle Joe]

133. And if it weren't for the scientists, the speed of sound would never have been broken. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

134. I don't give a fuck about your attempt to hijack the thread

Stop bullshitting about the sound barrier. Try saying something true about the subject of the thread. Stop being tedious evasive about the subject.

Tell us about those firing yout thought had happened.

Tell us about this dataset that only existed at CRU you claimed had been deleted.

Back up something you have claimed, for the first fucking time in the thread.

[WriteDown]

138. True about the thread?

Gore says that the emails were taken out of context, but NEVER attempts to put them into context. True?

[JonQ]

53. That's because the dinosaurs

were irresponsible consumerists. No doubt that's what led to their extinction.

[beardown]

147. Postings do raise a question.

So when you and Writedown get together, are you more like the Robin to his Batman or is less of partnership and more like a side kick so that you're more the Friar Tuck to his Robin Hood? Now unlike Writedown, I'll get back to the subject.

Writedown posts things about 25 million year old findings, but how do we know that the scientists that collected the data for those findings weren't involved in a plot of their own? Now if I was doing a full "Writedown" and not just a parody "Writedown" I'd shift subjects again and make some reference to plots by the Free Masons and add another question on top of a question. Anything to throw more questions into the pile and obscure the real issues.

Go back and review any threads that Writedown jumps into and see how rarely he responds to questions with the same rigorous standards that he demands as proof against his positions.

So mankind didn't cause the abrupt climate change that occurred 13,000 years ago? Interesting that you quote a climate change 'fact' from the same general group of scientists that you are trying to discredit now. Aside from that logic paradox does that mean that mankind cannot impact the climate now? You see no difference in the capacity to impact climate between a few million camp fire burners and six billion coal and oil burning, high tech dependent, consumers? Because past climate changes have not been caused by mankind we should do nothing to try and reduce our impact on worsening the next climate change? So I guess when winter cold comes you don't put on a coat and gloves because after all, winter isn't caused by mankind. So other than generating discussion friction and steering the discussion farther away from the science, why bother to include that factoid other than to keep JonQ occupied.

[Viking12]

152. More like Beavis and Butthead

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/1/P70SlEqX7oY

[ItNerd4life]

124. 3 million years is nothing compared to 600 million years.

Look at that trend and you will see a completely different story.

[Uncle Joe]

132. What is the different story, that mass extinctions took place when the Earth's

environment was drastically disrupted, that's no comfort to me.

There has never been a time since human existence when the Earth's biosphere faced the growing adverse dynamic comparable to that of the 200 year old Unnatural Industrial Age, but if you can think of one, please share it.

[ItNerd4life]

150. There is a theory regarding the last ice age

that it only took 100-200 years go take affect, which of course drastically altered the environment.

Please understand, I do believe that humans should try to be environmentally nuetral in what we do, however I'm not sure that what we are doing
hasn't happened many times in the past. We are the cause of increased CO2 levels, but that doesn't guarantee rise in temperatures as historical data shows over the last 600 million years.

Here's a scary thought for you. Just a brain twister. CO2 levels are way below average, maybe Gaia put humans on earth to bring up the CO2 levels back to their normal levels? (twisted, I know
but I like the idea of Gaia actually being a thinking organism.)

[fascisthunter]

38. of course they were, and intentionally

this is perfect troll bait material.

:popcorn:

[WriteDown]

49. It is odd that he never puts those phrases into context...

Generally, you would think he would post the entire email and show how phrases have been misused. Of course I may have taken your post out of context. :)

[Realityhack]

142. Others have done so...

some of the favorite quote mines might take 2-3 emails to get into the proper context. Just like a quote mine from a post here might take half a thread to explain.
The quotes I have seen 'supporting' some kind of cover up have all been out of context.
The data that was 'lost' was thrown out in an office move IIRC which lots of organizations do not realizing it will be important later. Stupid but it happens.

[WriteDown]

144. Feel free to cite these others and they're attempts. nt

[Realityhack]

154. One lead then do your own research.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/febrile_nitwits_and_the_hacked.php

[JonQ]

51. What about the fact that what he said was not true?

Is that ok to mention? The emails are not all older than 10 years. Nor does he have any special insight in to this (he's a VP and film director and self-declared savior of mankind, not a scientist)?

Does he know the context, are these his peers?

[Synicus Maximus]

56. Some were from 10 years ago but some were from last month

[underpants]

73. "Climate-gate" time line

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x501637

Nov. 17:

– RealClimate blogger Gavin Schmidt realized that someone was hacking his computer and downloading 160MB of files from a Turkish IP address. About an hour after the intrusion, a mysterious commenter at the climate skeptic blog Climate Audit posted a link to the hacked files with a note reading: “A miracle just happened.” Schmidt noted that, “four downloads occurred from that link while the file was still there (it no longer is).”

Nov. 19:

– Hackers then used a computer in Saudi Arabia to post the stolen e-mails, stored on a Russian server, on the climate skeptic website Air Vent.

– Skeptic blog “Watts Up With That” curiously is among the first blogs to posts the hacked e-mails.

– Chris Horner, an operative of the Koch Industries/ExxonMobil-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute, blogged giddily at National Review that although he had not been “able to fully digest this at present,” “the blue dress moment may have arrived” on climate science.

– Sarah Palin appears on Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor to discuss her new book. Palin and O’Reilly compare a young man who briefly hacked into her e-mail account in 2008, calling the incident “extremely disconcerting and disruptive” and “Watergate-lite.” O’Reilly and Plain do not discussed the hacked climate e-mails.

Nov. 20:

– In a front page article, the New York Times’ Andy Revkin reports that the e-mails “might lend themselves to being interpreted as sinister.”

– Myron Ebell, of the Koch Industries/ExxonMobil-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute, releases a statement pointing to the stolen e-mails to conclude that global warming science is “phony.”

– Reading reports on right-wing blogs on air, Rush Limbaugh dedicates a segment to the hacked e-mails, claiming they vindicate his belief that global warming does not exist.

– Conservative Ed Morrissey concluded the e-mails prove global warming is “not science; it’s religious belief.”

– Right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin cheers “the global warming scandal of the century,” adding: “The Chicago Way is the Global Warming Mob Way.”

– ExxonMobil-funded front group FreedomWorks blasts out an e-mail asking “Has the Global Warming Lie and Conspiracy Been Truly Exposed?”

– Marc Morano, a former Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) staffer who helps to distribute climate change denying propaganda to a network of news outlets and conservative organizations, broadcasts Climategate to talk radio.

— The Wall Street Journal’s environmental blog publicizes the conservative blogosphere’s furor: “this should get interesting … Maybe this will spice things up.”

Nov. 22:

– Sen. David Vitter’s (R-LA) staff distributes a letter claiming the stolen e-mails reveal what “could well be the greatest act of scientific fraud in history.”

Nov. 23:

– Heralding the stolen e-mails, infamous climate science skeptic Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) call for congressional investigations against climate scientists.

– Fox News’ Fox Nation headlines the e-mails: “Global Warming’s Waterloo”

– Glenn Beck devotes both his radio and Fox News program to covering Climategate, claims the e-mails show a “brand new reality” on climate science.

– Investors’ Business Daily editorializes that the e-mails show that global warming is “junk science.”

– The ExxonMobil-funded Heritage Foundation publicizes the stolen e-mails.

– Right-wing activist Viscount Monckton says climate scientists are “criminals.”

Nov. 24:

– Fox News’ Stu Varney begins his daily coverage of Climategate. He continues to attack global warming science, using the e-mails, on both the Fox News and Fox Business network.

– Washington Times editorial board, Drudge Report, both chime in to claim hacked e-mails show global warming is not real.

Nov. 29:

– Fox News regular Andrew Breitbart calls for climate scientists to be killed over Climategate.

Nov. 30:

– Rep. Candace Miller (R-MI) issues a statement to demand for an investigation of Climategate, and begins speaking about it on the floor of the House. In the following week, Reps Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Darrell Issa (R-CA), John Linder (R-GA), Bill Shuster (R-PA), Joe Barton (R-TX), Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO), Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA), Mike Rogers (R-MI), Dan Burton (R-IN), Steve Scalise (R-LA), Greg Walden (R-OR) and Charlie Dent (R-PA) begin blasting press releases on the subject.

Dec. 1:

– Newt Gingrich, who only 2 years ago said America must act “urgently” to address climate change, seizes on the stolen e-mails to spread skepticism of global warming science. Gingrich’s political attack group, ASWF, is heavily funded by coal interests.

Dec. 2:

– Right-wing billionaire David Koch, of the oil empire Koch Industries, sends his front group Americans for Prosperity to attend the Copenhagen conference to attempt to hijack the debate. AFP intends to “expose” the science using the stolen e-mails.

Dec. 3:

– Canada’s National Post reports that burglars and hackers have been attacking the Canadian Center for Climate Modeling and Analysis at the University of Victoria in British Columbia. In the lead up to the Copenhagen conference, Andrew Weaver — a University of Victoria scientist and key contributor to the Nobel prize-winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — noted that his campus office was broken into twice and that a dead computer was stolen and papers were rummaged through.

– Saudi Arabian climate negotiators for the Copenhagen summit endorse Climategate, charging that the e-mail show “there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change.”

– Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade says “damning” e-mails show scientists who “think … Antartica is becoming like the Bahamas.”

Dec. 4:

– NBC’s Nightly News with Brian Williams adopts right-wing Climategate smear: “Have the books been cooked on climate change?”

Dec. 7:

– ExxonMobil-funded think tanks the Heartland Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis publicize the e-mails to “discredit” global warming science.

Dec. 8:

– The Wall Street Journal accuses climate scientists of being Stalinists.

– Fox News devotes a segment to a right-wing Rasmussen poll with a graphic that claims 120 percent of the public believes scientists falsified global warming data.

Dec. 9:

– Sarah Palin, who only weeks earlier decried the hacking of e-mails, writes in an op-ed that the Climategate e-mails are proof that anthropogenic global warming does not exist. The Washington Post publishes Palin’s op-ed, despite the fact it is riddled with errors and outright falsehoods.

[tinrobot]

86. So, one cop lies on the witness stand...

...and we throw out the whole criminal justice system?

Kind of what they're trying to do with these emails. They're trying to use them to throw out all of climate science.

[fascisthunter]

116. transparent, isn't it?

[Kingofalldems]

104. This thread reads like free republic

[fascisthunter]

114. yes it does, and for a very bad reason

[ItNerd4life]

123. Yes, because if your not in lockstep with Gore's beliefs, you're a nazi.

I take it you didn't know that the earths at it's lowest temperatures and CO2 levels for the last 600 million years?

Most global warming believers only talk about the last 150 years. That's like looking at 1 grain of sand on all the beaches of the world.

The average CO2 levels are 1700 ppm for the last 600 million years. They are at 400 ppm now. Hmm, interesting aye?

[muriel_volestrangler]

135. Averaged over 600 million years, humans haven't existed

CO2 levels are at their highest for all of human existence. Going back to a time when there wasn't even life on land is so fucking idiotic, you should be ashamed to put it foward as an argument.

And, of course, "earths at it's lowest temperature" is false. It's warmer now than 100 year ago; 100 years ago, and 20,000 years ago. And many more points. You're feeding up complete bullshit.

No, what you have to say it's the slightest bit interesting. I have no idea why you're saying it. It total rubbish.

[ItNerd4life]

151. Life didn't exist on earth 600 million years ago? Please, learn some facts before you try to insult

Obviously you don't understand science. You sound as in lockstep with your 'beliefs' as you complain conservatives are. Please, try to educate yourself, I know it can be difficult
but you may want to try.

Here, I'll start. Historically, rise and fall of CO2 levels have not correlated into rise and fall of the earth's temperature of 600 million years.
Here's even a web-site so you can start: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

153. I said "life on land" - trying reading what you reply to

As a 'nerd', you're a severe disappointment. Here, I'll educate you:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~steurh/eng/old1.html

So, you really think returning to a climate that was suitable for forests that are very unlike what we have today (eg no flowering plants) is a good thing? Do you want any of the animals and plants that are alive to day to continue as they are? Or do you want them all to undergo radical evolution?

It seems clear you'd like humans to go extinct, anyway, with your yearning for a climate that's completly different to what we've evolved in. It doesn't surprise me at all you run to the climate-change-denying Monte Hieb site. A favourite of people who have no graps of the basics of climate science.

CO2 traps infra-red, and warms the atmosphere. This is basic science. Open a textbook; don't just run to the websites the deniers like the best.

[Romulox]

105. I'm taking the emails in the context of Gore's potentate-like lifestyle.

Private jets, palatial estate, etc. etc.

My guess is that is the "wrong" context to take them in too, eh Al? :eyes:

[mamaleah]

136. But it's ok for him to have a private jet. But next time you eat a steak or get in your car...

you are bad.

His private jet may pollute, but it's fine because he is going places to tell other people how not to pollute, got it?

[Uncle Joe]

137. Al Gore doesn't own a private jet, where are you getting that information? n/t

[mamaleah]

139. I was replying to Romulox.

But I am pretty certain the former VP doesn't fly coach.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

140. This is all standard Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck material.

Am I suggesting what you think I'm suggesting?

Yes.

[WriteDown]

141. True...

He leases them like most people. You don't think he's flying coach do you?

This article is a couple of years old, but most still holds true.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

Compare that to someone who walks the walk like Ed Begley Jr. but gets very little attention and money.

[Uncle Joe]

143. Yes, you are taking it in the wrong context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore

Gore has also been the subject of criticism for his personal use of electricity. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR) has twice criticized Gore. In February 2007, TCPR stated that their analysis of records from the Nashville Electric Service indicated that the Gore household uses "20 times as much electricity as the average household nationwide."<191><192> In reporting on TCPR's claims, MSNBC noted that the Nashville Electric Service report "omits several other key facts. The former vice president's home has 20 rooms, including home offices for himself and his wife, as well as a guest house and special security measures. Furthermore, the Gores buy energy produced from renewable sources, such as wind and solar. Tonight, Countdown confirmed with the local utility officials that their program, called the Green Power Switch, actually costs more for the Gores—four dollars for every 150 kilowatt hours. Meaning, by our calculations, our math here, that the Gores actually chose to increase their electric bill by $5,893, more than 50 percent, in order to minimize carbon pollution."<193>

A few months later, the Associated Press reported on December 13, 2007 that Gore "has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation's most environmentally friendly <...> 'Short of tearing it down and starting anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher,' said Kim Shinn of the non-profit U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design."<194>

Gore was criticized by the TCPR again in June 2008, after the group obtained his public utility bills from the Nashville Electric Service and compared "electricity consumption between the 12 months before June 2007, when it says he installed his new technology, and the year since then."<195><196> According to their analysis, the Gores consumed 10% more energy in the year since their home received its eco-friendly modifications. TCPR also argued that, while the "average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year," the Gore residence "uses an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations."<196> Gore's spokeswoman Kalee Kreider countered the claim by stating that the Gores' "utility bills have gone down 40 percent since the green retrofit." and that "the three-year renovation on the home wasn't complete until November, so it's a bit early to attempt a before-and-after comparison."<197> She also noted that TCPR did not include Gore's gas bill in their analysis (which they had done the previous year) and that the gas "bill has gone down 90 percent <...> And when the Gores do power up, they pay for renewable resources, like wind and solar power or methane gas."<198> Media Matters for America also discussed the fact that "100 percent of the electricity in his home comes from green power" and quoted the Tennessee Valley Authority as stating that "lthough no source of energy is impact-free, renewable resources create less waste and pollution."<199>

Some have criticized Gore's earnings, referring to him as a "carbon billionaire." <200> The National Center for Public Policy Research has argued that Gore has a conflict of interest due to being a public advocate for taxpayer subsidies of green technology while simultaneously being a partner of green-technology investment firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.<201> In response to these criticisms Gore stated that it was “certainly not true” that he is a “carbon billionaire” and that he is "proud to put my money where my mouth is for the past 30 years. And though that is not the majority of my business activities, I absolutely believe in investing in accordance with my beliefs and my values."?<202> Gore was challenged on this topic by Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn who asked him: "The legislation that we are discussing here today, is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?”<202> Gore responded by stating: "I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it." Gore also added that all earnings from his investments have gone to the Alliance for Climate Protection and that "If you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don’t know me."<202> In reporting on the same exchange, The New York Times quoted Gore as stating: "Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country <...> I am proud of it. I am proud of it."<203> It also quoted from an email issued by Gore on the topic which stated: "I have advocated policies to promote renewable energy and accelerate reductions in global warming pollution for decades, including all of the time I was in public service <...> As a private citizen, I have continued to advocate the same policies. Even though the vast majority of my business career has been in areas that do not involve renewable energy or global warming pollution reductions, I absolutely believe in investing in ways that are consistent with my values and beliefs. I encourage others to invest in the same way." <203> Gore also stated in an interview on Good Morning America that these criticisms come from a "denier" and that he is "proud to put my money where my mouth is for the past 30 years <...> and though that is not the majority of my business activities, I absolutely believe in investing in accordance with my beliefs and my values." <204>

<snip>

[totodeinhere]

127. But that doesn't stop the corporate media from jumping all over this.

Of course any sane person realizes that those emails are much adieu about nothing, but after Fox News ran with it everyone else had to get in line. CNN is now making a big deal out of it too. It's such a shame.