Still in denial about scientific community's consensus on climate change, Doocy challenges Al Gore to a debate
October 23, 2009 8:53 am ET
From the October 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
You criticizing Al Gore's intellect is like a toad calling a unicorn ugly.
Al's not a scientist. He's a politician. Politicians on both sides of this issue will stretch the truth to meet their agendas.
But the science is solid. AGW is real.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/
You routinely claim that skeptics "skip the science" and my answer to you is always the same. Here I'll repeat what I told you just yesterday:
Rather than use the parrot sites, why don't you read the actual scientific papers and draw your own conclusions? Even perusing the abstracts would do you a world of good to realize that the issue is in fact not settled. I have done this and, as mentioned often before, see many problems with AGW. Perhaps you can do the same and show a bit of independent thought yourself since you claim to be educated in science.
Also, you routinely attempt to remove politics from the AGW equation even though the AGW alarmist mitigation being proposed is mostly politically driven. If scientists were left to do their science without the influence of politicians and government then you would have a leg to stand on, but since that is absolutely not the case, your frequently parroted claims are legless.
Al's not a scientist but he has the backing of so-called scientists like AGW rock star James Hansen and shared the Nobel stage with the IPCC. For all of the Gore apologists here, I think my previous statements about Big Al bear repeating as he is an absolute hyper-hypocrite. Since you are so interested in the science, and since science is supposed to be based an real observations, here are some Gorey topics for you to research:
When did he "green up" his house? Hint: 15 years after he wrote Earth in the Balance and only because he was exposed for his energy-hogging ways in 2007.
How did Gore handle WTI, at the time the world's largest hazardous waste incinerators? How has that panned out for the residents of East Liverpool?
What are Gore's connections to Occidental Petroleum?
What were the effects of the Gores on the Caney Fork River from their zinc mine (ironically he opens AIT with a shot of what I believe is the river)?
How much methane and CO2 is released due to Gore's gassy black angus fetish?
What are Gore's connections to the Elk Hills Petroleum Reserve?
While opposing drilling in ANWR, what did he do with the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A), an area larger than ANWR? I'll answer that one for you. He opened up 87% of it to oil and gas leasing?
One last issue I'd like to point out since you attempt to separate AGW from politics: MMfA is not a science site. This is wholly a political site so I think it is probably all right to talk about the politics of AGW here, especially since the science and politics are so terribly intertwined. Enjoy your weekend.
Only I, galileonardo, can be the wisest among you, for I have now shaken and re-defined the very foundations that science has been built on.
Only I, galileonardo, can be the only correct one in existence.
How can this be? It is simple! I, galileonardo, has proven it to myself. Therefore, it MUST BE TRUE!
Buuuhhhhhaaahhhhh!
Silly child. Science is for grownups!
Another joke I imagine.
BTW, global cooling...? Record cold? Just a week or so ago we had temperatures in the nineties for a solid week here in New Orleans...in the middle of freakin' October! But, we all know that isolated aberrations probably mean nothing...so Doocy's example of cold temperatures are just as irrelevant as my example. But I'm not on national TV spouting off about it.
The local satirical tabloid The Levee is currently running a bogus story, with illustration of the new, updated, buff Hubig Pie Man with a body builder's physique...and how Hubig is going to make healthy pies.
Here it is:
http://www.nolevee.com/?article=hubig_s_goes_hu_buff
You're right, The Levee is funny.
We got a couple of laughs out of the story over the phone, actually, when she thought it might be true. Our teenager had put in his usual order for a few pies (chocolate), and I was watching his face when his mother told him she could only get turnip. Priceless.
I bet you thought a hard-hitting, relentless, potential Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist would get up off the couch and call Gore's office. Ha! You'd be wrong!
I know that even these idiots know that the people they're smearing have better things to do than call the GOP Propaganda Channel and argue, but I'll bet this works on their sluggish audience.After all, there are only two possible results;
Mr. X has not called to refute any of our "reporting", or
We have a Fox exclusive interview with Mr. X, who actually called our studio to deny accusations. (at which point, the made-up stuff appears to be a real story)
There are a lot of win/win situations when your customers are as dumb as the average Fox Fan.
Got bad news for you, not all scientist agree with Gore, and they are not in the pockets of "Big Oil" as you claim.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/Brickley-GW_for_Dummies.pdf
Forunately, Al Gore is not the face of global warming. Global warming was an issue before Gore and it will continue to be an issue, despite Gore's missteps.
You can't use the mistakes made by one individual to discredit an entire movement.
They're a good summary of the deniers' claims, and responses:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton
---His critics, including The Guardian writer George Monbiot, point out that Monckton has only a "degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and...no further qualifications."---
My brakes are squealing when I drive, but the guy who bags my groceries insists they're fine, so they must be fine.
Oddly enough, those who claimed cigarettes didn't cause cancer worked for tobacco companies, but I'm sure that didn't bias their research. The scientists who currently deny global warming work for the petroleum and coal industries, but, again, I'm sure that doesn't bias their work. Right? Yeah. Very very very far right.
Pony back sprains are, too.
I can't wait to destroy your Hawking Radiation theory and exposing you as the charlatan that you are.
you're going down!
Steve
[Hawking begins typing an answer.]
Doocy: "No answer, huh? Well, let me ask you this: you call these singularities 'black holes', which some say is just playing the race card. What say you? I mean, Rush Limbaugh was denied ownership of an NFL team over made up racists statements he never said, but here you are labeling astronomical phenomena -- on multiple occasions throughout your career -- 'black'! Why did you feel you had to play the race card, sir?"
[Hawking erases his previous response and begins typing new answer.]
Doocy: "I'm sorry, we'll have to leave it there as we're out of time. But as you all saw at home, he didn't have an answer to the simplest criticism. So typical of these elitists: they just can't answer the most basic question when you really hold their feet to the fire, and that's what we do here. We do thank you, Professor Hawking, for a spirited discussion, and we invite you back on the show anytime you like."
[Hawking deletes the sentence he was working on and begins typing a new response again.]
Doocy: "Not even a goodbye? There's no reason to be rude, Professor Hawking. Coming up next, is gravity keeping you down? Well one concerned citizen who liberals don't want you to hear from may have evidence that known communist and elitist, ivory-tower-type Isaac Newton faked his research! So typical. We'll be back after these words..."
Going way back to my youth, but I think I'm right on this. Doubters are welcome to Google, but I'm going to go without a safety net.
Cuban Missile Crisis, UN General Assembly, U.S. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson to Soviet Ambassador Gromyko(?), who was known to speak fluent English. Also said, in same speech, "I'm prepared to wait for an answer until Hell freezes over," which had a great deal of shock value at that time. (If he'd said some of the anatomical things Rush says on a daily basis the UN building would probably have collapsed into the East River.)
Personal favorite, from Life of Brian:
Crowd: "YES! YES! We're all individuals!!!"
Out-of-mainstream-guy: "I'm not!"
Pop @uiz: What do Eric Idle (Yay!!), Former PM John Major (Boo!!) and yours truly (Bronx Cheer!) have in common?
Answer: All born on same day (different hemisphere for the last one)
BWAAAAAAAAA . .
Yeah it is purple with pink elephants walking around.
That's the only problem I have with science. It works equally well for the informed, and the ignorant, stupid, lying deniers.
Too bad those idiots can't just float away because they don't "believe" in science.
Deniers are such sore losers.
http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogspot.com/2006/08/role-of-consensus-in-science.html
http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
http://chge.med.harvard.edu/programs/policy/course/Sheperdstown%202003/documents/mccarthy2_03.pdf
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Klaus-Martin-Schulte-and-scientific-consensus.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11653
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092614.stm
Check this site out. It addresses most of the denier's bogus claims:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Damn, galileonardo! I AM stepping on your toes!
Have a debate on whether or not the Sun revolves around the Earth---no one's stopping you. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.
Deniers are such sore losers.
http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogspot.com/2006/08/role-of-consensus-in-science.html
http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
http://chge.med.harvard.edu/programs/policy/course/Sheperdstown%202003/documents/mccarthy2_03.pdf
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Klaus-Martin-Schulte-and-scientific-consensus.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11653
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092614.stm
Facts? What facts? We don need no stink'n facts!
Live in your ignorance. It ain't no concern of mine!
But really, why make global warming a partisan issue? Why does trying to make sure we don't irreparably mess up our planet have to be a partisan issue?
If a conservative pundit agrees with a liberal he is out of the club...
Many of their suppositions don't hold up under close scrutiny, and so their only defense is to create doubt that the people who actually document the factual evidence that debunks them know what they're talking about.
Here's a good site that addresses most of the goofy claims by the deniers:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Uh sorry, galileonardo. Did I just step on your toes?
Yeah. I bet your opinion is that this is a "kool-aid crowd". Sorry--you can't say that here.
his gulfstream on the way to his next "speech"... We could use the warmth...
You do know that the UK courts ruled that "an inconvenient truth" is "alarmist, exaggerated, one sided, apocalyptic, not impartial, a poltiical film, and not scientifically accurate".
The UK courts banned the film from being shown to school children without also accompanied by a warming, since the court determined the film was a breach of educational rules.
Your text to link here...
This link will help detail all the many inaccuracies of the "award winning film". There are 35 inaccuracies.
Your text to link here...
That is not accurate; in fact, there was no ban, only some guidelines.
Better check your "facts"--maybe you got them from an unreliable source...
1. Ridiculously exaggerated 20-foot rise in sea level (Justice Burton called it "distinctly alarmist").
2. Mass evacuation of citizens of low lying Pacific nations to New Zealand (didn't happen).
3. Shutting down of the Gulf Stream (not going to happen).
4. The fallacy of a direct correlation between CO2 levels and temperature (you guessed it, wrong again).
Aw c'mon. Al Gore is a big fat wind bag. On that point, galileonardo is right. And only on that point.
Take the wind out of galileonardo's sails. Keep the topic off Al Gore.
galileonardo's total lack of understanding how science works is the reason he/she (it?) keeps the "discussion" (if what he/she does, passes for "discussion") on Al Gore.
Al Gore is not a scientist. So he is not the expert on AGW.
The science speaks for itself. That's where galileonardo, and all deniers like him/her, fails miserably. No data. No proof.
Check this link out to see how deniers are nothing but small children in an adult world.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Never got that answer on that bogus chart you posted on the other site. What happened?
Still in deny mode, because you can't use the right chart, and you can't tell which way is UP on a chart?
Now you stoop to proving your point by going after politicians?
Keep your focus, dude. How about sticking to some real science? That's where the proof of AGW is.
You are not "owed" a proof from anyone. Just keep to your ignorance. That's your problem.
But, here's a response. Not that you'd ever take a step out of your comfort bubble.
NOTE to anyone else reading this response - take this as an example of how these deniers are so narrowly focused on their motivated reasoning, they miss the obvious science.
Here's the story behind your misstated, ignorant "proof" using Argo data (but you didn't):
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php
From the article:
In 2004, Willis published a time series of ocean heat content showing that the temperature of the upper layers of ocean increased between 1993-2003. In 2006, he co-piloted a follow-up study led by John Lyman at Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle that updated the time series for 2003-2005. Surprisingly, the ocean seemed to have cooled.
....
When scientists mistrust their data, they do they same thing you do when you think your watch is off: they check another clock. To diagnose the problem in the Atlantic, Willis needed to compare ocean temperature measurements from multiple sources. The first source he turned to was sea level data from satellite altimeters.
Quote from Willis: Since the revision, says Willis, the bumps in the graph have largely disappeared, which means the observations and the models are in much better agreement. “That makes everyone happier,” Willis says.
....
Then the article concludes:
If there is a moral to this story, it’s that when it comes to understanding the climate system, it’s hard to imagine too much redundancy. Every scientist involved in these studies says the same thing: to understand and predict our climate and how it is going to change, we need it all.
We need multiple, independent, overlapping sets of observations of climate processes from space and from the Earth’s surface so that we can create long-term climate records—and have confidence that they are accurate. We need theories about how the parts of the Earth system are related to each other so that we can make sense of observations. And we need models to help us see into the future.
“Models are not perfect,” says Syd Levitus. “Data are not perfect. Theory isn’t perfect. We shouldn’t expect them to be. It’s the combination of models, data, and theory that lead to improvements in our science, in our understanding of phenomena.”
Another link to address your concerns. Just go to this site. Perhaps this guy can set you straight. I certainly can't.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm
I thought deniers where hung up on the science.
What does Al Gore have to do with it. So he's a schmuck. So what? What does that have to do with facts of AGW?
You still haven't proven a thing in all your posts. But you keep re-posting all the same debunked junk as before.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
unless a warning was attached about the nature of the film, that it is not a documentary.
the court ruled:
"Former Vice President Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, is too "partisan"
and "political" and riddled with misleading exaggerations and factual errors
to be shown in public schools without an explicit disclaimer, a British High Court
ruled on October 2."
"The court began its discussion by noting, "It is now common ground that it is not
simply a science film ... but that it is a political film."
"The court disagreed with the Gore's assertion that the debate "is well and truly
over."
"Referencing nine specific topics on which Gore's film misrepresented or lied about
the science--and noting evidence suggests many others may also exist--the court
found presentation of An Inconvenient Truth in public schools must be accompanied
by a notice that science does not support many of Gore's assertions, and that there
are scientific views disputing Gore's overall premise that humans are causing
dangerous global warming."
Your text to link here...
Besides, science is not supposed to have consensus. The word is a political term. When you stop discovering you stop learning. So the use of "consensus" with regard to the AGW theory means "stop talking or off you go to the Gulag".
I think the UK court speaks for many of us who have doubts about the theory of man made global warming..... "The judge said some of the errors were made in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration” in order to support Mr Gore’s thesis on global warming."
Here's a couple of examples from the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092614.stm
You can find more BBC links via:
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2376
Who cares about the British courts?
Stick to the science of AGW.
Oh, I forgot. You don't know how to read a chart.
Maybe you should find an 8th grader to help you out.
"who cares about British Courts, stick with the science of AGW".
When AGW science is brought to court, they find it is propoganda and political, not supported by science.
It does not stand up to scrutiny.
SLRTX, You can believe anything you want to, just don't impose your (proven in court to be false) beliefs on others.
Your position doesnt hold water so you must resort to personal attacks. I find that quite comical.