Al Gore Debates Global Warming

Back


Al Gore debates expert climatologists (at last) on whether carbon dioxide causes global warming.

Channel: News & Politics
Uploaded: October 3, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Author: junksciencecom

Length: 00:08:52
Rating: 3.95
Views: 186243

Tags: global warming climate change al gore demand debate carbon dioxide

Video Comments:
cheesypasta (July 5, 2008 at 12:03 pm)
If they get two wildly differing interpretations off of the same piece of data then surly that means that the data is usless in this arguement.
JonThm (July 5, 2008 at 10:02 am)
Prof. Zimmerman says GW is not true. Who are you, stooge?
SauceMystery (July 5, 2008 at 5:08 am)
"...125 of the world's leading tropical cyclone researchers and forecasters says that no firm link can yet be drawn between ...climate change and variations in the intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones."


WMO--World Meteorological Organization
watchful15 (July 5, 2008 at 3:25 am)
Sharkblubber - Yes, a primary role of human CO2 emissions in global warming is documented by the known physics of CO2, the absence of increased solar irradiance in the last 50 years (the sun partly contributed to early 20th century warming), and the concurrence of Earth/troposphere warming with stratospheric cooling, signifying warming as a trophospheric heat retention process. Interesting additional statistical analysis can be found at quaker[dot]org/clq/2007/TQE158-EN-GlobalWarming[dot]html
sharkblubber (July 5, 2008 at 12:00 am)
"Many components of the climate system-including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons-are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century."
This AGU statement was drafted by John Christy among others.
capemall (July 4, 2008 at 10:38 pm)
actually you can be a skeptic and be in the agu..think christy is in the agu isn't he? as far as the poll question..I don't recall saying any poll stated 100%..not even communist election results are that one sided
capemall (July 4, 2008 at 10:35 pm)
there is a difference between how you do things for one reason and how you do things for another...eventually yes we will have to get off carbon based power...the question is are we going to do it in a smart way because we know we will eventually have to...or are we going to do it in a stupid way that will cause much harm in the world because we think the sky is falling
sharkblubber (July 4, 2008 at 10:34 pm)
as far as agreement or disagreement are concerned, if you won't let me have my 100% agreement in the AGU then you can't have 100% disagreement from your skeptics poll either. I'm sure we could both pick out individuals in both that have changed their stance but the numbers are statistically insignificant.
sharkblubber (July 4, 2008 at 10:30 pm)
Apologies for my cheap shot at your spelling. The point i'm trying to get across is this: We will have to stop using oil/fossil fuels in the future because of one of two reasons a) they become too expensive due to lack of supply or b) because we find a better, cheaper, less polluting, more sustainable alternative. weaning ourselves off our addiction to finite fossil fuels is a win win situation so any policy which encourges this must be a good thing?
capemall (July 4, 2008 at 10:27 pm)
actually I don't think I have to name someone that disagrees with 100% of everything agu says now do I? if 99% disagree with 95% of what agu says are you still able to claim 100% agreement? I can see you learn well from the agw crowd