Hansen/NASA created US warming?

Political science at it's best!

 

Hard to call it a documentary when it is fictional in nature and designed only to get a message across by misrepresenting the science involved. Never liked that much, even in science fiction, but documentary fiction strikes me as a new category of advertising. Gasland obviously being another.

 

Al Gore's movie is about 8 years ago so it shouldn't be held to too exacting a standard. But I would say it kicks butt on any denialist you see on these boards and that's despite not having the advantages of accumulated evidence.

Here is a review of of the movie back then.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/

 

You are being your usual obtuse self. I'm talking about destroying mankind obviously along with a lot of other species. Of course some form of life will go on since I doubt we will get things hot enough to create a Venusian Effect.

 

Are you saying that the producers/directors/technical experts 8 years ago didn't know that CO2 wasn't a leading indicator? Or that Al Gore didn't know, after consulting these experts? Or that he knew, and just decided to lie, because it was necessary to "sell the message"?

You do realize that "selling the message" is exactly what folks like Schneider were advocating decades ago? Not selling the science, because that doesn't sell, particularly when it disagrees with the message, but the scary scenarios and whatnot.

A script that Al Gore followed very closely, decades later.

 

LOL... Realclimate? A blog? You don't accept WUWT, but you accept Real Climate? LOL...

The movie is nothing but a pofitmentary. It is full of lies and deceptions.

 

RealClimate is a high-level science blog. WUWT is a gossip/propaganda/political blog. Cultists naturally won't see any difference, being cultists make no distinction between science and propaganda.

And deniers can keep spouting loopy conspiracy theories on message boards, but it won't make a bit of difference. They're only preaching to a very tiny choir. No matter how much they rave, no matter how convoluted and elaborate their conspiracy theories get, the rest of the planet will continue to correctly define them as cult cranks.

 

You are one of those internet trolls, never provide any facts just attacks.

 

I see their irrelevance is wearing on some people. Years of screaming on a message board, and still no progress. The science has simply moved on without them, not even noticing that they're gone.

When you woke up today, you were irrelevant.

When you wake up tomorrow, you will still be irrelevant.

For the rest of your lives, you will be irrelevant.

Don't say I didn't warn you. I pointed out how swearing allegiance to a conspiracy cult was a bad idea. But no, none of you listened. The lure of the cult was too strong, in the way it removed uncertainty, gave your lives structure, told you how you were a class above everyone else, got you emotional affirmation from the other cultists. You know, like any religion does. I just hope those warm fuzzies that your cult affiliation brings you is worth the lifetime of humiliation you've signed on for.

 

News flash. We have won. You are the rear guard of a retreating army.

 

You are right about one thing, the observational science has moved on without the CAGW crowds failed warming predictions making them pretty irrelevant except in politics.

 

Any idiot knows he got that right and of course most of the rest was right too, Just some details that needed modification. I took the most important part of the documentary being the ice core studies that showed the close alignment between temperature and CO2 over 100s of thousands of years. You denialists are still fighting the implications of that. Mamooth is right, the denial level is so high it can only be chalked up to a cultist religion.

 

We are not the ones defending a prophet.

 

You avoided the question. If by "right" you mean, he sold the message he wanted to...sure...it was a great piece of sales, wonderful advertising. But to create that advertising, someone had to lie. Pretend that something that ISN'T true, WAS true. And then sell....Sell....SELL!!!

So yeah, he did a great job. But 2+2 does not equal 5, regardless of the hot glitzy sales job trying to sell you the idea, or how well known the celebrity is, claiming it is true.

And you again avoid the lie contained in the "documentary". And create strawmen to fight along the way, them being all that you are capable of combating apparently. When all you can do is pretend that those asking questions about the insufficiency of the information YOU fell for are somehow flawed, rather than them being those who do understand science, and how it works, and how REAL science incorporates independent review, multi-disciplinary teams, backcasting for model verification, a thorough understanding of both natural and human systems and their interaction, and the correct quantification of the uncertainties involved, well, then call me whatever name you want, but I stand on the side with THAT understanding of SCIENCE, and not whatever this half baked Hollywood sales and advertising thing is you want to defend.

 

Fiction is what Lord Monkton and the other high profile denialists come out with - Gore made a doco

 

Your prophet lacks even a degree. Watt could possibly be upwiththat?

 

LOL, what Gore tried to do was show that CO2 created the warming when it is the other way around. Sure there is a close correlation of CO2 and warming, warming releases more CO2 but delayed. To try and make that CO2 creates the warming is just another way of selling snake oil.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah, appeal to authority. You know you don't have to have a degree to have common sense don't you?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, the Goracle made a doculie that the CAGW faith believe.

 

How much have you ever seen me post from Watts. I can run rings around him in terms of knowledge on the subject. FYI I have many many degrees.

 

Actually I like Mocton's style because at the end of ever debate I've seen him in he freely admits that the cherry picked all his evidence which is exactly what his opponents did but they would never admit it. He makes me laugh. If you have ever watched warmmongers debate their is a pronounced lack of confidence in their manner of presentation. Beta males and females all of them.

 

Realclimate is no better than WUWT. They are both sourced. I guess you could call it a matter of opinion which is better, which is where bias comes into play.

Here is my question then. How good at you are reading the sourced material and determining the accuracy of either? If you don't understand the science behind the source material used, you have no qualifications to determine the accuracy of the blog.

My bet is you have faith that the RealSciece blog is accurate, without really knowing the facts. Faith makes it a religion.

 

New map uncovers thousands of unseen seamounts on ocean floor

Earthquakes are where you find the volcanoes. Wonder how many of those volcanoes are producing CO2 that bubble to the surface?

 

Faith is a belief based on hope in things for which there is no evidence (Hebrews 11:1), which describes the position of AGW deniers. Believing in something which you don't understand, but is supported by the evidence, is called confidence. I have confidence that those who spend their lives studying climate understand it better than anonymous internet posters.

 

LOL, so no warming when it was supposed to be warming is proof of denier faith? Sounds to me like the belief is not from the skeptics.

 

Not nearly enough to match humans.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/wea...anoes-co2-people-emissions-climate-110627.htm

 

You are only talking about volcanoes on land. The extensive sea mounts are a new discovery and dwarf what happens on land.