Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Al Gore's own facts?

  1. Nov 21, 2006 #1
    Although this thread seems to pertain to Earth/climate issues, it's actually about the idea of facts of a politician. Al Gore has a lot to say here:



    We don't know for a fact if the late 20th-century warming in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the past 1,000 years, but we do know for a fact what the NAS has said about the past 1,000 years:


    Hmm, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but except for Al Gore, they are not entitled to their own facts?"
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 21, 2006 #2
    Are you surprised a politician is taking liberty with facts to further a political agenda?

    WMD's anyone?
  4. Nov 21, 2006 #3
    Al Gore is not intentionaly misrepresenting the NAS study. Although his statement is not precisely accurate, it is no where near the level of deception that was perpetrated by the Bush cabal in order to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

    If you read the NAS press release in context:

    :you see that they are less confidant, not denying it.

    Here is another viewpoint:

  5. Nov 21, 2006 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  6. Nov 22, 2006 #5
    You guys are stealing the thread. It's neither about the 20th century warming nor the global warmers assassination attempt on the http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/medieval-warming.pdf [Broken] for which evidence is accumulating on a daily base; nor is it about justifying an ..errm.. incorrectness by pointing fingers to other.

    It's just about how demagoguery works. Pointing to rules of honesty first suggesting to be honest and breaking with that only a few sentences further on.

    Also very revealing why and how dishonesty is defended so fiercely.

    Anyway, if youwant to discuss the accuracy of the particular statement, why not open a thread in Earth science about why the Medieval Warming Period was not warmer than today?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  7. Nov 22, 2006 #6
    Actually, Roger Pielke Jr just posted an interesting quote from Lippmann about the propaganda mechanism at work here:

  8. Nov 22, 2006 #7
    Huh? Did you even watch that movie? Medieval warming is confirmed and discussed in An Inconvenient Truth (happened three times). However, it does not come anywhere close to industrial warming we are experiencing. Your attempt to raise a controversy does not change the fact that data exists to back Gore's assertion. "Less confident" does not imply that Gore made up this fact.

    You could discuss whatever you want. But if your discussion is based on a wrong premise, then it is just a rant that does not have a point.

    PS: there is a difference between mild exaggeration and outright fabrication of "fact". And you have yet to establish that Gore's minor errors in his presentation is an intentional act to deceive.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  9. Nov 22, 2006 #8
    Ah finally, what took you so long?

    Stealing the thread once more this is about honesty and correctness. Not about the factuality of the Medieval Warm Period. Indeed Gore did not make it up, it was a warmers conspiracy.

    Nevertheless there is a huge difference here, the unprecented 1000-years text is of the http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf [Broken], based solely on the hockeystick, fig 1b. The hockeystick has been debunked very reluctantly by both the NAS-gang of North and more convincingly by the Wegman comittee. So using the same text again as if nothing has happened, does seem to show a considerable contempt for the truth.

    I think http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf [Broken] of the viscount is worthwhile too.

    After all an http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/mwpp.jsp [Broken].
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  10. Nov 22, 2006 #9
    Huh? You are expecting me? I don't get it.

    Warmer consiracy? Huh?

    From that website's about section
    OK... :rolleyes:

    I don't have anything to say on this thread anymore.

    PS: here is the Europe "data" presented on the website(Norway, the "data" is all regional). It's good for a laugh:rofl:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  11. Nov 22, 2006 #10
    Most certainly there must be a few dozen honestly indignant members here, ready to fight and save the world. it took quite a while.

    By the authority of the Wegman report, revealing the network and the experiences of Prof David Deeming, Dr Chris Landsea and Dr Hans von Storch. I'll elaborate if so desired.

    How about the current warming? what would the researchers of the year 3006 find for our period? Strong warming signals in Siberia, Europe and parts of North America, virtually none with several cooling signals in N and S America and Australia. the "data" is all regional. That would certainly be for a good laugh :rofl: thinking that there was global warming around the onset of the 21th century.

    Problem with the medieval warm period is that all regions show the warming.
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2006
  12. Nov 23, 2006 #11
    So this thread is about dishonesty.

    Where to begin?

    Let us start http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/3860_GlobalClimateSciencePlanMemo.pdf [Broken] with an Exxon Mobile internal memo that outlines the denialist strategy and authorizes the funding. I hear about the "warmer conspiracy" all the time, yet I see no evidence of it. If there is an equivalent to this memo among the scientists at NASA, NOAA, or the IPCC I have yet to see it.

    So the entire basis of the denialist strategy was not to promote science, but to cast doubts and aspersions.

    Then there is the http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf [Broken] there are questions that professor Wegman has to date refused to answer or provide key inputs so that others can validate his results.

    As for the hockey stick being debunked, that just is not the case. For a detailed explanation of the hockey stick controversy look here. There are some legitimate questions but there is nothing that significantly changes the conclusions. The NAS study confirms in general the conclusions of Mann et al. MM05 is part of the strategy of "sowing doubt", as outlined in the Exxon Mobile internal memo. If you look http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=3804&CFID=21084385&CFTOKEN=29888831 [Broken] you will see that both Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick are associated with institutes that received funding, as part of the Exxon strategy.

    So on the one hand we have the NAS, NASA, NOAA, Royal Society, and probably every other objective science institute, supporting the IPCC conclusions that AGW is real. On the other hand you have a handful of think tanks that are directly connected to the strategy of "sowing doubt" as outlined by the ESSO memo that are deliberately distorting the science.

    :rolleyes: Hmmmmm, who should I believe.:rolleyes:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  13. Nov 23, 2006 #12
    You refuse to learn about fallacies, don't you? Another deluge of ad hominem attacks.

    Just read this in http://www.desmogblog.com/national-posts-corcoran-pops-his-cork that I linked to in am another thread:

    So who do you want to believe? Why not try http://w3g.gkss.de/staff/storch/ [Broken], basically a (mild) warmer and certainly not a friend of the sceptics, and one of the top notch climatologists. However, hear what he (left, pink shirt) has to say about the hockey stick here:

    http://track.websiteceo.com/r/176785/gamma.physchem.kth.se/~climate/part1.avi [Broken]

    you can skip the intro and go to time 08:11, the word hockeystick can be heard at 08:27. Keep listening to 09:27. However it's very questionable if the sin of Michael Mann was that marginal, seeing its tremendous impact on society.

    Source: Climate change conference in Stockholm
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  14. Nov 23, 2006 #13
    I fail to see how exposing the Exxon conspiracy is "ad hominem."

    You made the "warmer conspiracy" assertion without any evidence.

    I provided the memo that outlines the denialist strategy.

    The dishonesty is coming from the climate deniers. In the long run, what they have done is harm the credibility of scientists on both sides of the debate.

    You began this thread with an ad hominem attack on Al Gore, accusing him of demagoguery. Now when I provide a much better example, of dishonesty, you accuse me of ad hominem.

    I think I am done with this thread.
  15. Nov 24, 2006 #14
    Most certainly you have not listened to Hans Von Storch who compares the hockeystick with the scientific fraud of Hwang Woo-Suk and, debatable, Schoen.

    And that is an unproven ad hominem to fuel the hate campaign, the witch hunt. How can you prove that a possible memo of somebody with a certain opinion is the central strategy of ordinary people with exactly the same wishes for a better world?

    However, talking about stategies, why not have a look at warmers strategies to persuade the world? A little bit more than an obscure memo with a doubtful status:

    http://www.ippr.org/members/download.asp?f=/ecomm/files/warm_words.pdf [Broken]

    Hit "download without registration" for a demagoguery manual. Note:

    Indeed you can read everywhere that the debate is over. Global warming is certain, etc, etc. So you can see for yourself, truth and demagoguery are not compatible.

    Edit; I advise this one from the google search:

    But I agree, whenever there is the word "agenda" it's an ad hominem.

    Evidence please?

    Which clearly shows that you still have no idea what an ad hominem is. I showed that Gore first states to believe in facts and a few sentences later breaks his believe with an ....erm... unfact. So I'm just exposing him, I'm not talking about his motives to do that. I merely show what he does. See the difference?

    Perhaps because for some reason, massive support is failing in this thread, hunting me down with tar and feathers?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  16. Nov 24, 2006 #15
    Oh and about the details of the movie, an inconvenient truth, you may want to read http://brunnur.rt.is/ahb/pdf/Gore-Lewis.pdf [Broken].
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  17. Nov 24, 2006 #16


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Andre, when I was a child in the 1950's, we used to ice-skate on Thanksgiving weekend and there was snow for easy deer-tracking most of November. 50 years later, I can deer-hunt in November in a T-shirt or light sweatshirt. Children can't ice-skate usually until January, and it is so warm and rainy in the winter that ski areas are shutting down, and snowmobilers have to go practically to the northern tip of Maine to find any trails to ride. I host an ITS trail on the eastern edge of my property that was heavily traveled 10-15 years ago, and last year I saw perhaps 10 snowmobiles (all local club members desperately trying to pack down recent snow and beating their own snowmobiles to pieces to do it because there was not enough snow on which to operate the groomers). In the 50's and 60's it was not uncommon to get several feet of snow in a single storm. Now it is uncommon to get more than a few inches.

    Granted, this is a view of one area over a course of over 50 years, so you can dismiss it easily as "regional variation", but I guarantee that it is getting warmer here every year. Since much of Maine's tourism is centered around winter sports, the weathermen are very much attuned to it. Whether this warming is directly attributable to human causes may be in doubt - the warming is not.
  18. Nov 24, 2006 #17
    Sorry, I just can't resist.:rofl:

    I read about 20 pages, 20 pages of complete BS. Then it hits me: who would use politics to debunk science?

    What do I know, it is CEI, the think tank policy group (not scientific) that is funded by tobacco, auto and oil companies. Here is one of their masterpiece :biggrin:

    So there you have it. This falls right in line with all the other "evidences" the thread starter had presented so far. IMO, the only useful information is the piece on propaganda, which certainly can be applied to this thread.

    PS: the thread starter's preemptive ad hominem defense is also quite funny. Maybe it is just me, but he seems to be the only one consistently dishing out labels. But for some reason, I received
    Thanks for the compliment :biggrin:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  19. Nov 24, 2006 #18
  20. Nov 24, 2006 #19
    Here is another:


    Of course they neglect to mention that Al Gore bought offsetting carbon credits.


    Andre is actually a very nice guy, not one to throw around ad hominem. He is usually up on the latest developments in climate science and discoveries as they pertain to global warming. I have found following his links to be most educational. Some of them are a little questionable, like CEI, CO2 Science, and Junk Science, but even those sites sometimes have good information.

    The problem with the denialists is that they have created an environment where anyone legitimately raising doubts is automatically looked upon as biased.

    The whole issue reminds me of how the neo-cons changed the tone of politics.

    Climate science is still in it's infancy. There is so much that we do not know, so much research to be done etc. Instead of accusing the scientific community of "warmer conspiracies" , we would be much better off if the warmers and skeptics could get together and work toward better understanding the science.

    I suppose though that as long as there are powerful vested interests in the status quo the false debate will continue.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  21. Nov 25, 2006 #20
    I remember the same fifties and have simular "memories" of endless hot summers and extremely cold winters where it got so cold:


    Anyway to avoid the trap of the fallacy of selective memory, lets have a look at some Maine station data. You can find them here. Scroll down and click on the appropriate part of the world to get a list of weather stations. Click on one to get a temperature graph on the bottom of that second page you can download station data as text files. With a little bit of playing in Excel you could get this:

    http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/maine.GIF [Broken]

    hey why is the image feature not working here? I'll upload it

    Showing the summer (red), yearly average (green) and winter temperature trends (blue). From here it's easy to draw some conclusions. Yes the winters are getting warmer and more so in the center (Millinocket) than to the East (Houlton). But hardly so the summers. Why not? Is there no more increasing greenhouse gas in the summer? You see this more often BTW. Could it have to do with the reversal of the Atlantic Multidecal Oscillation? Good discussions for meteorlogists there.

    Other explanations for the warming have been:
    1. Variation in the oceanic Thermohaline Current (THC) and the transport of heat from the tropix to moderate lattitudes
    2. Variation in cloud cover and density, due to
    (a) variation in condensation nuclei due to
    (a1) variation in algae/planckton, causing spores in the air
    (a2) solar cosmic ray variations concurrent with sun spot activity
    (b) large scale variation in sea surface temperatures.
    3. enhanced greenhouse effects of increased Tropopause water vapor and upper cirrus clouds due to the strongly increased aviation.
    4. Direct industrial heat due to the combustion of ~5 GtC per year.

    But this is OT, sorry. I'll be back later for some more observations about political truths, fallacies and demagoguery.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook