Global Warming Believers - How do you react when Al Gore's own source says he is lying about the data?

Dana,

You are such a denier! Al Gore got a Nobel prize for his efforts and he has done nothing but spout lies. Most of his movie has already been shown completely false. Anytime he talks about he environment, he either says something stupid or he says something completely misleading. It is because of the large number of lies that he has told that many people doubt everything about AGW and thinks it is nothing more than a power grab. Think about it. When you hear something where someone has said 20 facts that support his idea, and then asks you to sacrifice something, what happens when you find that some of those facts were indeed false and indeed were meant to purposely mislead you. I would proceed to question everything said, and want proof for every "fact". His hypocrisy is nearly unmatched in his ability to consume vast amounts of energy in both his travels and his home, not to mention the vast fortunes he is making off of this AGW idea, while at the same time asking people to sacrifice more! He is not taking the millions and millions that he is getting from the AGW idea and giving it back to charity. I'm not suggesting that everybody (even those who would stand to profit) should be willing to do this, but if you want to ask others to sacrifice, you should not be getting substantially rich because of this.

You have become nothing more than a useless pawn of a tool. You can't even think for yourself any more. If you would at least have the decency not to come on here and act like Al Gore is a saint, you might generate some respect, but as it is, everybody knows that you come to Dana if you want the standard AGW political answer. Worthless. You are a political pawn not a "master of science".

Honestly? You can't handle the truth! Lol

the earth's climate has warmed before humans stepped away from living with the ecosystem (excluding the native tribes still practising that culture, particularly in the amazon) and even if all of humanity never existed, the climate would still warm. It is part of a natural cycle of earth, though as to how much humans can influence this cycles speed is anyone guess and I'm willing to see out climate control, as one day humanity will discover the fact our earth will again warm up and put our species success to a great test of survival.

We all need to eat and agriculture is the biggest sufferer in warming climate, the flowon effect is of course world hunger. It's agriculture that needs saving for the survival humanity!

I doubt the worlds human population will ever stablise and if we never colonize another planet in sn effort to secure extra resources to sustain our population, then maybe we will never discover the many benefits the universe holds in store for our species.

Beacuse they cant admit they were wrong, there was no proof in the first place, enviornmentalists are hypocrites, they will ways of life onto other people but wont live that way, Al gores pool house uses more electricity in one year then the average american house does in 5 yrs, and all the politics flying to denmark puttin out all the co2 can be to friendly can it? its not about the enviornment its about progresivism, its dangerios, it leads to communism

Who cares what Al Gore says? He is not a climate scientists, he is a lying politician just like the rest of them (democrat and republicans alike).

I get my information from the source, scientists and people who do nothing but study this stuff all day long. Just because Al Gore lies, that doesn't disprove the scientific fact that global warming is happening. That's like saying, xyz politician said that gravity will be gone in a few years, that must mean this whole gravity theory is a hoax.

Also, the so called "climate gate" email quote "hide the decline" has been explained countless times, but just for the sake of this question i will explain it yet again. It has to do with tree ring data that was used to calculate temperature until the late 60's at which point that method was all of a sudden totally inaccurate and did not match the instrument measurements. So the "trick" of hiding the decline was a common thing that they do in these graphs, which is to camouflage that divergence in the late 60's. Even if you take the tree ring data out completely, the trend still shows accelerated warming.

When one exaggerates, that person is lying.

Good grief.... the Goober got a Nobel prize for being an 'expert' on global warming.

Dana blows it off as a minor mistake. Sheesh!

Gore needs to get it right each and every time he opens his mouth on the subject.

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," [Maslowski] explained to the BBC. "So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

Even conservative blogs are calling this a non-event:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35366_The_...

There should be a separate Al Gore section for people who want to ask and answer Al Gore questions. These are irrelevant here.

I don't really listen to Al Gore.

He didn't lie, he just got the numbers slightly wrong.

"Al Gore, speaking at Copenhagen, cited the work of Dr Wieslav Maslowki to the effect that “there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.” In fact, according to the Times (UK) “Maslowki, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said that his latest results give a six-year projection for the melting of 80 per cent of the ice.”

Now it’s true that projecting a 75 percent chance of completely ice free in 5-7 years and projecting 80 percent ice loss in 6 years are different things. Gore seems to have gotten this slightly wrong."

http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/15/gore-derange...

Gore isn't a climate scientist and is thus prone to getting details like this incorrect. But to claim he's lying is just wrong.

If deniers held themselves to the same standards as they held Gore, they would be permanently embarrasseed by themselves, because as you illustrate so well in this "question", deniers never get the facts right.

They don't care. It's not about science anymore. It's about politics and wealth distribution. The poor fools who actually believe they are trying to save the earth are being duped.