It will never happen. I think he told the lie so many times that he actually believes it. I can think of several farkers that are in the same boat.

What a joke of an article. The man cherry picks his 'facts' like most of the GW deniers.

Does this mean he has to give back the Nobel Prize money? Because that's all he has to live on.

What the Huffington Post failed to mention is that Al Gore has joined a consortium of companies of of Arizona which are lobbying for "green" technologies to be forced on the public. If they succeed in forcing legislative changes to lower CO2, Al Gore and his buddies will become billionaires virtually overnight.

This all about getting into your pocket.

Con_Authority

What the Huffington Post failed to mention is that Al Gore has joined a consortium of companies of of Arizona which are lobbying for "green" technologies to be forced on the public. If they succeed in forcing legislative changes to lower CO2, Al Gore and his buddies will become billionaires virtually overnight.

This all about getting into your pocket.

Seriously, are you sick, twisted or bent? Do you not think, at least one time a day, that the Anti-Global Warming lobby is trying to get into your pocket?

Follow the farking money, doofus.

/Nothing personal.

I'd buy a used car from algore before I'd ask NeoAnderthal if the sun was going to rise tomorrow.

Con_Authority: What the Huffington Post failed to mention is that Al Gore has joined a consortium of companies of of Arizona which are lobbying for "green" technologies to be forced on the public. If they succeed in forcing legislative changes to lower CO2, Al Gore and his buddies will become billionaires virtually overnight.

This all about getting into your pocket.

*DING DING DING* We have a winner!

At least in my humble opinion ;)

Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that "the science is in." Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.

No, he's quite right about that part[1][2][3].

Mordant: I'd buy a used car from algore before I'd ask NeoAnderthal if the sun was going to rise tomorrow.

Is that the best you've got??? Really? Figures.

Jon Snow:

"Consensus" and press releases are not equivalent to "science".

Gore's apology by ritual suicide will be accepted as his mere lying words are worthless....

Jon Snow

WTF? Wikipedia is your third source? What does you neighbor's cousin's car mechanic have to say on the subject?

Capitalist1: "Consensus" and press releases are not equivalent to "science".

As droll as it may be to pretend to be interested in a lecture on what science is or is not by "Capitalist1", you seem to have let my post fly over your head:

The consensus itself is not "science" nor did I claim it was- rather the consensus exists among the relevant scientific organizations because of the science.

When Gore says "the science is settled" in terms of the reality and attribution of current climate change, he's completely right.

Jon Snow: No, he's quite right about that part[1][2][3].

Using debunked press releases isn't really conductive to your winning an argument...

NeoAnderthal: WTF? Wikipedia is your third source? What does you neighbor's cousin's car mechanic have to say on the subject?

Wikipedia isn't "my source", it is a link repository to the relevant scientific organizations' stance on climate change- it's a bit easier than creating a citation for each, just as it is to cite the joint science academies rather than each individually.

I trust that's not too difficult a concept. May I assume that you acknowledge that the national science academies of the G8+5 as well as the primary scientific literature also reflects the scientific consensus?

LordZorch: debunked press releases

Citation?

PoopStain: Most of it seems to be going towards global warming studies, not anti-global warming studies.

Because of course that grant money is yours to keep and a postdoc furthering the already uncontroversial paradigm that humans are changing the climate has a greater financial incentive to lie than those who are offered $10,000 prizes by the fossil fuel industry to "debunk" it!

If you're a scientist and you want funding for your research, hypothesizing about causes of global warming are far more likely to get funded than hypothesizing about how it's all bullshiat. Just saying.

Congratulations on admitting that you have literally no idea how the grant process works.

So you aren't a scientist either, I take it?

I choose to keep my vocation (among many other things) private due to this being the internet and all, but your question implies that my arguments may or may not stand on their own merits but rather my employment/career which is fallacious. It's a no-win answer, as I will either be accused of an appeal to motive, argument from authority, or some other excuse to ignore my comments due to financial motivation. I don't assume that you're a shill for the fossil fuel lobby, and I'd appreciate the same respect for letting arguments speak for themselves.

Jon Snow

The current 'consensus' runs counter to your claims. Your consensus isn't a true consensus.

NeoAnderthal: The current 'consensus' runs counter to your claims. Your consensus isn't a true consensus.

What is your rebuttal of a meta-analysis of the primary scientific literature, a joint statement from the national science academies of the G8+5, and a list illustrating that every relevant scientific organization acknowledges anthropogenic climate change?

Also:

it's funny because we know what it must have been like to live in the day when people vehemently denied that the sun was the center of the solar system because they couldn't bring themselves to challenge their presumptions about the world as they know it.

PoopStain: Grant funds are routinely used for salary purposes. It's not unusual. Actually, it's fairly common.

I await your citation that shows evidence of researcher profiteering due to involvement in the climate change conspiracy.

PoopStain: I was asking because you were using press releases. I'm not a scientist, either.

(I didn't say I wasn't a scientist, BTW) My first cite was from a study in the most respected science journal in existence illustrating that the primary scientific literature reflected a consensus on climate change. My second was from a consensus statement from the national academies of science of the most powerful (economy-wise) countries in the world who have every incentive to lie about climate change. My third was a list of consensus statements from relevant scientific organizations. Do you need to see a study explicitly making the claim that anthropogenic warming is occurring?

Assuming scientific consensus because a group of them got together and said they agree, to a very limited degree, about GW isn't exactly scientific proof that such a thing exists as Al Gore sees it.

Al Gore is irrelevant to the science. Also, 02:14:46 AM.

. Even most of the scientists advocating GW have vastly differing views about overall effect, overall human influence, end game, or any number of other variables. About the only thing they can settle on is that the earth is getting warmer.

No scientist is "advocating" global warming. Do you even understand how ludicrous that sounds? The balance of evidence when looking at the observational and theoretical evidence and the projected economic impacts of civilization inhabiting major urban cities on coastlines and dependent on breadbaskets strongly suggests invoking the precautionary principle. That doesn't necessitate unanimity or absolute certainty.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071022165540.htm (pops)
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0720-lime_oceans.html (pops)
http://www.pcl.org/legislation/globalwarmingfunding.html (pops)

You cited exactly zero studies implicating profit or grant source on biasing climate publications. Color me shocked.

http://www.globalwarming.org/node/61 (pops)

You've got to be shiatting me.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h2338/text (pops)

This is evidence of scientific misconduct due to grant allocation how?

One of which is an actual bill that requires money be spent on grants for a particular cause. It didn't make it out of committee, but it is hardly unusual in the requirements. Check out some AIDS research bills from the early 90's.

Grants are issued to study particular issues all the time. They aren't based upon predetermined outcomes.

I've worked for an organization that did scientific research, not as a scientist, and there are plenty of stipulations attached to what you study in order to get the money. Results aren't skewed by demanding a particular result, they are skewed by what is funded in the first place.

If you have evidence that the organization you worked for "skewed results based upon what is funded in the first place" then you are part of the problem. I would have no problem reporting evidence of the same, and more meaningfully I expect it from my coworkers and colleagues. Scientific misconduct is not rampant, it festers in isolated pockets because others allow it.

The fossil fuel/anti-regulation industry has spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to censor and discredit anthropogenic warming unsuccessfully. Claiming that you allowed scientific misconduct to go unreported isn't evidence that such is widespread, nor is that idea backed by the underlying evidence.

Hooray, another GW wank thread.

Amazing how hard it is to separate trolls from true morons in this thread.

For anyone who really cares about global climate change, I refer you to www.realclimate.org -- real scientists with real scientific discussion.

Make sure to check out their 2008 In Review posting -- much more amusing than anything you will get in this thread.

oldebayer: Con_Authority

What the Huffington Post failed to mention is that Al Gore has joined a consortium of companies of of Arizona which are lobbying for "green" technologies to be forced on the public. If they succeed in forcing legislative changes to lower CO2, Al Gore and his buddies will become billionaires virtually overnight.

This all about getting into your pocket.

Seriously, are you sick, twisted or bent? Do you not think, at least one time a day, that the Anti-Global Warming lobby is trying to get into your pocket?

Follow the farking money, doofus.

/Nothing personal.

This is probably what bugs me the most in these discussions. Big oil and big industry have more money to lose or gain on the GW issue than anyone else. By minimizing the effects of their industry on the environment, they make more money.

X money + good for your health vs. X+Y money+bad for your health even if global warming is a false conclusion.

Which doesn't mean I advocate blindly spending billions on global warming at this time.

Can we please, pretty please, stop all the climate threads?

We need to focus on a real issue like Global Slowing.

What will our children do once the world comes to a stop???

Tsunami Ditka: Hooray, another GW wank thread.

Boring. John McCain believes in it. George Bush believes in it. The only people who don't are the type of idiots who think Sarah Palin was qualified for anything above dogcatcher. 23%ers, if you will. The bottom of the bucket on the right, intelligence-wise.

Fark admins owe the world an apology got greenlighting this nonsense.

The Church of England just invested $200 million in Gore's green company. Churches know how to make money, so Gore must be right.

Jon Snow: Do you need to see a study explicitly making the claim that anthropogenic warming is occurring?

Well as a scientist I have come to the understanding that the majority of non-scientists don't understand the concept that you have to look at the "total body of evidence" instead of just looking at one or two articles. The same thing comes up in evolution discussions...in a way, YES they NEED to see ONE study stating once and for all that whatever you are trying to show is shown in ONE study.

The old saying of not seeing the forest for the trees sums it up pretty well...only in reverse...they want to look at one tree but refuse to bother trying to understand the scope of the forest...or something...there's a good analogy there, but I just woke up.

ghare: Tsunami Ditka: Hooray, another GW wank thread.

Boring. John McCain believes in it. George Bush believes in it. The only people who don't are the type of idiots who think Sarah Palin was qualified for anything above dogcatcher. 23%ers, if you will. The bottom of the bucket on the right, intelligence-wise.

Oh, I forgot, the people who prey on the 23%ers.

oldebayer: Con_Authority

What the Huffington Post failed to mention is that Al Gore has joined a consortium of companies of of Arizona which are lobbying for "green" technologies to be forced on the public. If they succeed in forcing legislative changes to lower CO2, Al Gore and his buddies will become billionaires virtually overnight.

This all about getting into your pocket.

Seriously, are you sick, twisted or bent? Do you not think, at least one time a day, that the Anti-Global Warming lobby is trying to get into your pocket?

Follow the farking money, doofus.

/Nothing personal.

Both sides are trying for our pockets. Its the American way. Money to be made and no time to waste.

Came for the beautiful graphs that everyone seems so fond of, and leaving disappointed. Come on, this is a global warming thread...er...climate change thread. Break those graphs out that prove global warming, and lets see some that disprove it too. Those are always so helpful when seen for the 100th time in these discussions.

ghare: Tsunami Ditka: Hooray, another GW wank thread.

Boring. John McCain believes in it. George Bush believes in it. The only people who don't are the type of idiots who think Sarah Palin was qualified for anything above dogcatcher. 23%ers, if you will. The bottom of the bucket on the right, intelligence-wise.

So only the most vehement Right-wingers, the people that the right would be foolish to ever try and piss off are the only ones who still cling to this? That puts the Repubs in a bit of a pickle, don't it?

I also fail to see any mention of Mr Amblers's scientific credentials. Except the ones he was issued by Exxon.

Minus1Kelvin: ghare: Tsunami Ditka: Hooray, another GW wank thread.

Boring. John McCain believes in it. George Bush believes in it. The only people who don't are the type of idiots who think Sarah Palin was qualified for anything above dogcatcher. 23%ers, if you will. The bottom of the bucket on the right, intelligence-wise.

So only the most vehement Right-wingers, the people that the right would be foolish to ever try and piss off are the only ones who still cling to this? That puts the Repubs in a bit of a pickle, don't it?

A dead party, at least for the moment.

ghare: I also fail to see any mention of Mr Amblers's scientific credentials. Except the ones he was issued by Exxon.

He has a doctorate in Crichtonology.

ghare: ghare: Tsunami Ditka: Hooray, another GW wank thread.

Boring. John McCain believes in it. George Bush believes in it. The only people who don't are the type of idiots who think Sarah Palin was qualified for anything above dogcatcher. 23%ers, if you will. The bottom of the bucket on the right, intelligence-wise.

Oh, I forgot, the people who prey on the 23%ers.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but demonizing and belittling your opponents to discredit them is weak sauce, and usually an indication that you have nothing else to support your arguments. If you cannot argue your point on the science and instead resort to petty partisan name-calling you are part of the problem, not the solution.

downtownkid: ghare: ghare: Tsunami Ditka: Hooray, another GW wank thread.

Boring. John McCain believes in it. George Bush believes in it. The only people who don't are the type of idiots who think Sarah Palin was qualified for anything above dogcatcher. 23%ers, if you will. The bottom of the bucket on the right, intelligence-wise.

Oh, I forgot, the people who prey on the 23%ers.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but demonizing and belittling your opponents to discredit them is weak sauce, and usually an indication that you have nothing else to support your arguments. If you cannot argue your point on the science and instead resort to petty partisan name-calling you are part of the problem, not the solution.

Don't worry, his ability to blindly follow and never question the assumptions behind any data along the way is showing.

SpinStopper: Con_Authority: What the Huffington Post failed to mention is that Al Gore has joined a consortium of companies of of Arizona which are lobbying for "green" technologies to be forced on the public. If they succeed in forcing legislative changes to lower CO2, Al Gore and his buddies will become billionaires virtually overnight.

This all about getting into your pocket.

*DING DING DING* We have a winner!

At least in my humble opinion ;)

Al Gore is totally cereal.

..we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination.... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts.... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

- Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead Author of many IPCC reports

We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.

- Timothy Wirth, former US Under Sec of State, current Head of the UN Foundation

Best Al Gore video speech ever! Ending is the BEST PART!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64&feature=channel_page

Jon Snow:

Just wanted to say thanks for doing the heavy lifting here.

AntiNerd: For anyone who really cares about global climate change, I refer you to www.realclimate.org -- real scientists with real scientific discussion.

I just want to second that, it's a great site. Also, skepticalscience is another good site for people looking to educate themselves on this issue.

TFA: First, the expression "climate change" itself is a redundancy, and contains a lie. Climate has always changed, and always will.

I stopped reading right there. Could the neocons please find some wharrgarble that hasn't been recycled 50,000 times please?

Yes, Al Gore does owe the world an apology...

For running a shiat campaign in 2000 and letting Bush win.

PoopStain:
One of which is an actual bill that requires money be spent on grants for a particular cause. It didn't make it out of committee, but it is hardly unusual in the requirements. Check out some AIDS research bills from the early 90's.

Well that proves it. We better call Africa. AIDS doesn't really exist.

/some people actually believe this

I just wonder if, once they realize they have been wrong, the Chicken Littles will be happy for the world, admit their error, and gain any humility?

My guess is no to all three.

Anyone else notice that the author of this piece is a farking musician and has no credentials whatsoever?