Can we have a moratorium on Al Gore references?

Good point and nice try, but they won’t. Actually, they can’t because the only argument they have is the emotional quasi-political. I guess that is the reason for the thumbs down for references to actual data and research results.

The downside of Gore’s involvement was that it mixed science and politics in the minds of everyone who does not know the difference, and the guy is a friggin’ lightning rod for conservative anger.

The only connection between Gore and climate science was in his position as part of the whole government rat’s nest of appropriations and the BS maze and gauntlet they must navigate before miraculously making their way to the NSF, NOAA, NASA, etc.

I’ve always thought that the reason science and the peer review process works is because scientists are socially dysfunctional and anti-social. There is as much energy spent trying to prove everyone else wrong as there is trying to prove that you are right. If you submit something for review that contains a mistake, it is like someone unleashes Hounds of Hell on you.

Deniers who think Gore had any influence on the direction of research or shaped scientific conclusions are nuts. If you want an accurate mental image of how the funding process in science works, just picture an overcrowded daycare center that has 100 cranky-hungry 6-year olds and only 50 cookies.

====

thankuberry --

You cannot just look at the relative frequency of individual components when dealing with a dynamic natural system that swings back and forth and tilts around some balancing point. It does not matter if one input explains more total variance than another if the “other” is the part that tips the balance.

If you have two 1,000-pound weights hanging on each side of a balancing scale, you can tip the balance by changing the weight just a fraction of a percent on either side.

"Carbon offsets" are just a way for Al Gore to avoid having to actually DO anything he tells everyone else they should be doing. What a crock. Global warming caused by man made pollutants is so ridiculously minimal that stopping it would have little to no effect on any supposed increase in global temperatures. The global climate shifts by nature. I read an article a few weeks ago from a scientist in Australia who thinks we're nearing the next ICE age. Seriously... is there any real significant data to back up any of these assumptions? But we'll all believe Al Gore because he made a movie that scared the crap out of us. Get a brain people, think for yourselves!!

I agree. I'm Australian and am not interested in the US rivalry between the elephant and the donkey.

I also heard of global warming about '77 or '78, long before I had heard of Al Gore and that probably applies to most of the scientists who did the early work on this. It would certainly apply to Svante Arrhenius who first predicted it a century ago.

I have not been following the global warming questions on Y!A, I have mostly been trying to scotch the world ending in 2012 garbage. I have long come to the conclusion that anyone who quotes Nostradamus in that connection is a fool or a liar and probably both at once. Similarly, anyone who complains about Al Gore in a global warming connection is probably a fool or a liar, probably both at once.and their opinion can be dismissed out of hand. It was probably copied from Boss Limburger or whatever his name is, not by any reference to observed fact.

So I guess you can just ignore anyone who refers to Al Gore.

Sure, if the AGW believers will stop using the idea of "consensus" as though it was scientific evidence. Or the claim that "EVERY scientist EVERYWHERE says it's ALL OUR FAULT." That and the ridiculous notion that if you disagree with them you don't understand science. Dang it's annoying.

I'll just give myself a thumbs-down on the way out since this question is pretty much dominated by the pro-AGW faithful.

The thumbs down thing is dumb - but people on the warmist side do it a lot as well. I accidentally posted an empty' post a while back and it was five minutes before i realised it. In that time, i had got two thumbs down.

As to the Al Gore thing, he is a lot of fun as he is such a blatant hypocrite, but i will try to refrain after pointing out that Al Gore is a democrat like Stalin was a socialist.

I will instead refer to George Monbiot who is almost as big a hypocrite and such an over-privileged git he is almost a parody of himself:

""Monbiot grew up in Henley-on-Thames in South Oxfordshire, in a large country house that backed onto Peppard Common. His family is descended from French aristocrats, the Ducs de Coutard, who fled their estates outside Tours in the Loire Valley in 1789 during the French Revolution, changing the family name from Beaumont. [2] His father, Raymond Geoffrey Monbiot, is a businessman who headed the Conservative Party's trade and industry forum, [1] while his mother, Rosalie—the elder daughter of Roger Gresham Cooke [3] —is a Conservative councillor who led South Oxford district council for a decade. [4] Monbiot was educated at Stowe School in Buckinghamshire, a private school, and won an Open Scholarship to Brasenose College, Oxford, where he gained an upper second class degree in zoology. ""

Lots of comedy gold there! We love people like that telling us we are evil for driving to the shops.

.

"Bravo"!!!!

I couldn't have said that better myself. I am 110% in agreement with you, and am also really irritated with the (THUMBS DOWN) Happy ppl that only give that mark because someone either explained what they were talking about and why they felt that way or because maybe someone proved there answer to be wrong. Either case i think that's a immature and stupid reason to do so. So i completely agree!

yes yon-gay that sounds reasonable as long as you concede that AGW is only a dream of no substance.

oh wait just one more thing, with your enlightened philosophy I'm sure you will have no urge to thumbs down or dismiss the information in this link.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al...

sorry I couldn't resist, apparently I haven't reached your level of enlightenment & my dharma needs a tune up..

i wonder if the idea that humans are causing GW is very fair, the #1 source of earth's warmth is solar radiation, can we debate that? probably been done. the #1 greenhouse gas is water vapor, with 7/10 of the earth's surface being water i can hardly believe we can curb that. the math plays out that if we stopped emmiting co2 100% for the next 100 yrs. it would have extremly little impact on the whole. the earth is realy big. our contibution is not significant. whether i'm at home or not, my breath makes little difference to the plants on my window sill. thats my take

I can appreciate your frustration with all of the Gore references. Personally, I don't care what his political leanings are..... he is simply an idiot.... and a Greedy one at that.

Unfortunately, he is using his connections and influence to brainwash our children with the tripe that he pushes via the written word and film.

Once Gore removes himself from the global warming cause and retracts what he has published and filmed, I believe that folks will forget him.

You're talking to a brick wall. Nice try, though.