How come whenever you're talking to a skeptic of climate change, they bring up Al Gore?

Pretty simple - people aren't 'skeptical' of global warming for scientific reasons, they're 'skeptics' for political reasons. Because of their political biases, they formed a pre-determined conclusion that man-made global warming must be wrong (because they're unwilling to support carbon regulation).

But they don't have a scientific leg to stand on. They either know this, or just plain don't care about science. Since Al Gore is a former politician, he's an easy target for political attacks.

I see a contradiction. At first you say that you talked to one sceptic and then later state that whenever you talk to a sceptic they always do it. So which is it? I get the impression this isn't a serious question but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Just because you talked to one sceptic and they brought up Al Gore doesn't mean you should paint us all with the same brush. Maybe you should talk to more sceptics?

In fact, I'll give you some empirical evidence. Check the answers in my profile.

hi Mike i think of the two events do no longer desire to work out the election exchange right into a referendum on carbon Tax . An election could be gained and lost on a sort of matters no longer in basic terms one concern here in Australia Howard gained his elections on boat human beings ( refugees) and GST Tax He gained the two interior the direction of advice from the media they promoted the guy overboard concern The media performed time and time returned pictures of a small newborn leaping from a leaky boat while in fact the youngster exchange into thrown to a discern already interior the water It wasn't surprisingly to computer screen peoples lives in great possibility yet to dramatise it to win a election by using taking part in on peoples thoughts to win votes to me isn't a competent look . and then interior the subsequent election because of the fact the boat human beings lie went so nicely he desperate to have a referendum on a GST tax in the past the election and the folk voted in a landslide win for NO GST TAX and for people who've short ideas HE pronounced that the folk have spoken an Australia will have no GST at the same time as ever he exchange into chief and what did he do as quickly as he exchange into reelected introduce a GST TAX He in simple terms stored on lien to the Australian human beings. So i think of the reason they are no longer speaking approximately AGW is with the help of the fact they see the technology isn't settled on CO2 being the familiar reason for climate exchange They understand climate exchange IS happening international and that they understand the time table there is an previous asserting permit dozing canines LYE do no longer pass poking it with a stick just to work out what happens it mite chew you on the *** in simple terms like the CO2 debate in case you stick your neck out on CO2 subject concerns then you definitely could desire to be left with egg on your face and neither occasion needs that. My opinion Mike Cheers

Because he's the recognised face of AGW no matter how much you alarmists try to wriggle out of it and distance yourselves from him, knowing as you do he's nothing but a circus showman with vested interests who has been proven time and time again to be a liar!

Probably because he is the largest loudest most glittering example of smug moronic hypocrisy that exists on the global warming front.

There are many such examples to choose from, however. So, perhaps you could condemn smug moronic hypocrisy?

If the alarmunist side would condemn his hypocrisy and his idiocy, then he wouldn't be "thrown in your face."

I do not have that problem. Perhaps you remind them of him in some way?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/288276

Edit @Linlyons:

Gosh, I thought that the link I posted was to explain how to remind people of Al Gore. Anyway, this question is a political question, not a science question.

Edit @Baccheus:

Fairly blanket statement about how uninformed us skeptics have been! I for one skeptic, was quite aware of the Keeling curve,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon...

AGW theory,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670....

and greenhouse gases

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Atmosphe...

before 1980.

Edit @Icarius62

We have lots of numbers, but ours are much less memorable. Our numbers bore people. Here are some to sleep by:

http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#...

Edit @Dana:

It never ceases to amaze me how regularly you can brilliantly see right to the heart of an issue, then match your brilliance with an ignorant statement. You are correct about carbon regulation being a major reason that some would never see AGW as valid.

http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_i...

That hardly means that there is no science behind the notion that AGW is bunk.

Just one obvious example: Look at Table SPM.2 on page 8 of

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/a...

Notice how column 4 which shows predictions based on the information in columns 2 and 3 always shows greater certainty in the predictions than in the evidence for it? This is clearly an intentional lie designed only to produce newspaper copy, and be quoted by warmers in YA. Bunk!

EDIT:

If you wish to apply Pascal's wager,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

you should be cautious about destroying and exporting what industry is still left.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100302/ts_csm/284236...

Al Gore is the undisputed king of climate science with a Nobel prize for his efforts. His movie is a shining example of the strides climate science has made under the IPCC.

You should all be proud... or aren't you?

Liz, you would not be around if you got that fat azz thrown in your face. He is an American joke, that's all you really need to know.

because Algore is the Pope in the Global Warming religion

Because he's the creep of a billionaire behind it all...