Maybe Gore's 15 minutes of fame on this subject are running out? FWIW, I'm a believer in global warming, but as is pointed out the thing's a hell of a lot more complicated than just human industrialization. There's fair evidence the current warming trend is caused by the invention of agriculture - and although I suspect there's some environmentalists who DO see humans as a plague upon the pristine Gaia surface - I certainly don't see any signs in the near future of us ceasing to produce food through farming.

(There's also pretty good evidence that if we WEREN'T affecting the climate with methane from agriculture, we'd be seeing glaciers developing in NE Canada.)

I've seen elsewhere the simile that "If 95% of doctors tell you you've got cancer, and 5% don't, who are you going to believe?" I guess it would depend if you actually had cancer or not, and whether the 95% were like the quacks in the early 20th Century selling all sorts of 'treatments' for diseases that didn't do one bit of good.

Algore's flatulence apparently is warming other planets as well. You can read about it here

The Crook't Hawkey Schtick is finally coming home to roost.

Michael 'Piltdown' Mann was the greatest academic hoax of the late 20th Century.
=====================================

I am all in favor of Albert getting rich by conning idiots with an environmental scam. It's the best thing he's ever done. "It's immoral to let a sucker keep his money." (Canada Bill Jones) I'm pleased to see Albert is a moral man.

Not only is he helping himself and helping the suckers lose some unneeded funds but he is also helping the Republic. Sooner or later the suckers will wake up. They will realize it's not a religion but rather a business. Americans get much, much more observant when they realize its a deal and not the High Mass of the Holy Church of Mother Gaia.

National Geographics (that well-known publication of the VRWC) recently wrote about this, suggesting that Mr. Sun just might be the culprit. Here's the link.

Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made "the most important and salient points" about climate change, if not "some nuances and distinctions" scientists might want.

Nuance:

Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent...

Distinction:

It (IPCC) estimated that the world's seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches -- down from earlier estimates.

Didn't someone want to give him an honorary climatology degree? Let's start with anti-anxiety medication, we'll move on to remedial math, an earth science and biology masters degree, an actual degree in climatology, and then perhaps something resembling sense will come from his mouth.

NYT! Begining to see the light? Fighting for their lives? (LAT also). Hmmmmm.

...and the earth's temperature dropped in the post World War II era when CO2 production skyrocketed as the world's economies ramped up.

How many people were driving cars in China after WWII? Japan? India?

The post WWII period saw a rapid industrialization of the US and the rebuilding of Western (not Eastern) Europe. In the current period, we are seeing the industrialization of China, India, Brazil, Mexico, and more. Eastern Europe and Russia are growing much faster than before. In addition, the US and W Europe continue to grow.

So, basically, we have added about 2 billion people to this new phase of industrialization as compared to post WWII. That's why things are heating up.

"It's a complicated environmental phenomenon that happens on its own for a number of reasons,"

The fact that conservative Republicans are finally admitting that problem does indeed exist is progress. For years they denied the problem was real, now we just disagree on the causes and remedies - that's significant progress.

But the same blind denial that caused these people to pretend it wasn't a problem to begin with, now has them blinded as to the solution.

If it wasn't Al Gore spearheading the issue these conservatives would not be fighting global warming as vehemently as they are -- and once you realize that many of the critics - even the critical scientists - are politically motivated to fight this issue you will hopefully turn a blind ear (heh) to their bleatings, evaluate the evidence on your own, and make up your own mind.

Remember, these same people that are now claiming that we can't remedy the problem were just a few years ago denying the problem existed. Don't let their political motivations sway you - read up and decide on your own.

It's hard to perpetuate lies, so the truth must come out from the NYT once inawhile if they want to keep any shred of credibility. I just wonder the motivation. Is it really to maintain credibility? or is there something else going on?

Is it possible that, following the whole Oscar Love-In, Al Gore has become so insufferable, so unbearably smug that no one wants to see or hear him?

Is it possible that those who beatified him in the days following his 2002 election defeat are, like the blind suddenly healed, beginning to see Al Gore for the charlatan he is?

Nah! I think they are just jealous of all the fun he's having.

Would that they saw him as the ManBEarPig that he is!

Larkin, watch the documentary. You'll see that global warming has nothing to do with human population.

The hits just keep on coming:

A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.

Extreme cold in the North Pole? No! We're doomed!!

Oh wait, nevermind.

Hey Gore..the links above provide some more inconvenient proof! your con job did'nt work in 2000 and it wont work now!

"The fact that conservative Republicans are finally admitting that problem does indeed exist is progress. For years they denied the problem was real, now we just disagree on the causes and remedies - that's significant progress."
You do realize, argueing against the Chicken little syndrome of Al Gore and the far left, is not saying the world is'nt warming. It's been warm before, and will be warm again. And I believe man doses affect it, not nearly as much as Al does. And it does no harm to invest in our future by not taking any chances, but it's hard to get excited about something when you know the Al Gore's of this subject have no problem greatley exagerating to get thier point across. They would be better served to just give a honest answer.
I think we should just wait and see how many inches in the next five years the ocean's rise. Should be about an inch a year, right.?

Plainslow:

Global warming isn't a problem at all. It's a natural occurring phenomenon. Watch the documentary - it's sound science.

Do I see the hand of Hillary here?

Many suspect Al is planning another run for the top job, and I'm sure the strategists working for Hillary are aware of the risks. All he has to do is wait until her and Obama are covered in muck, and he'll look like the savior for the Democrats. Perhaps some of their pals at the Times are helping her kneecap Al before he officially gets in the race? I can't see any other reason the Times would take a step back on the whole global warming panic, and -- you know -- be reasonable about it.

See also the poll that suggested Gore can't win, and (less likely) the revelations about Al's energy use.

(Yes, I'm still paranoid about the Clintons...)

Guess I'm not following you Kim. What documentary are you talking about? Can't tell if your being sarcastic or not? You keep saying watch the documentary, it's sound science, (I can only assume Al Gore's) then say it's a natural occuring phenomenon. That's a given.

plainslow: It appears you've chosen an appropriate user name.

The documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, which I linked to in the post, Plainslow. Here's the link again.

And furthermore, some of us in Canada and points north are all bloody in favor of Global Bloody Warming.

There are 6 inches of fresh frosty white in front of my house, it's still sifting down and I'm sick of it.

So natural or man-made, let's have more of it.

Hmmm, they disagree with the Gore-supporter scientists. They must be liars.

Kim,

At least one of the experts quoted in The Swindle documentary says that his comments were selectively edited, so that it sounds like he is making the opposite point to what he was trying to say.

Link here

If you feel a documentary which uses cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes from scientists is "sound science", then it's pretty fair to say your idea of what constitutes good science is pretty skewed.

You may be right Old Coot. But work came first before the research (so my boss says)

plainslow: And I apologize for the snark, probably triggered by my chronic ADS (Algore Derangement Syndrome).

Update: Old Coot, a loyal Wizbang commenter, points me to a very interesting story that is quite appropriate for this post:

LOL! Now that's gotta be one of the stupidest things I've seen on here (and those have been coming fast and furious on here lately). It's cold in the Arctic, so that disproves global warming! Huzzah!

You know, I used to think that in all the rhetoric on here, there were some reasonable criticisms of this science. But now it seems that Kim and others don't even understand what "global warming" means at its most basic level! (Hint: it doesn't mean you can sunbathe in January in Buffalo.)

Oh, and additional humor that you cite a documentary with a participant who says he was portrayed as making a point "diametrically opposite to the point I was making", "it never occurred to me that I was dealing with people who already had a reputation for distortion and exaggeration", and the resulting documentary is "sad" and "an out-and-out propaganda piece".

He adds, "I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component."

Hey, good find there, Kim!

At least one of the experts quoted in The Swindle documentary says that his comments were selectively edited, so that it sounds like he is making the opposite point to what he was trying to say.

Considering that everything he is quoted saying in the documentary is essentially factual information (ocean takes in and gives off co2 based on temp, doomsday scenarios are popular, etc.) he's merely playing the CYA game. I don't really blame the guy for wanting to protect his job but you do wish these people would grow a pair.

LOL! Now that's gotta be one of the stupidest things I've seen on here (and those have been coming fast and furious on here lately). It's cold in the Arctic, so that disproves global warming! Huzzah!

One of the current global warming pet causes is that the arctic is melting and drowning/starving all the cute little polar bears.

He adds, "I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component."

Good for him. Shame though that his segments in the film had nothing to do with it.

Viewers of The Great Global Warming Swindle should bear in mind that one of the scientists on the program has threatened to sue Durkin and Channel Four for editing his comments in a way that totally misrepresented his opinions. He called the Swindle "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two."

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2031457,00.html

This wouldn't be the first time Durkin has been castigated by the very scientists he claims agree with him. The Independent Television Commission ordered Channel Four to broadcast a prime time apology for exactly the same unethical practices used in another Durkin documentary. Other claims in the appropriately named Swindle have been discredited by real scientists in real scientific journals, as opposed to tabloid newspapers.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032572,00.html

Incidentally, here's what real scientists are saying about Broad's piece in the NYT:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/broad-irony/#more-419

Taltos, I'm assuming your posts were meant to be humorous, rather than serious attempts to rebut anything. But I'll respond anyway.

Considering that everything he is quoted saying in the documentary is essentially factual information (ocean takes in and gives off co2 based on temp

Obviously you didn't read his response, part of which hit directly upon your weak point:

By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making

One of the current global warming pet causes is that the arctic is melting and drowning/starving all the cute little polar bears.

Yep. Now show where it says that you no longer need a jacket when visiting there.

Incidentally, here's what real scientists are saying about Broad's piece in the NYT:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/broad-irony/#more-419

Heh, Mann. Thats like discussing the faults of the Clinton administration with Hillary.

Brianless haven't you read where everyone must stop taking a piss in the ocean? If we don't cut back soon New York will be under "water".

Great story on the Artic expedition fiasco but you missed one of the funnier quotes. The last paragraph of the story...

>"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."

Aha! The "unpredictability" angle. When you play that card ANYTHING is proof of Global Warming.