Al Gore Debates Global Warming
Loading...
IMPORTANT :: YOU MUST SAVE THE FILE AS ".FLV"
Change the file name from "get_video" to "video.flv"
Tags:
Comments to “Al Gore Debates Global Warming”
- "In responding to these, Ive found email to offer me more scope to provide both direct answers and a list of valuable sources." I'm sure it's useful not to have someone who has a back ground in physics around when you have to tell your story.
- AngryAussie has several YouTube accounts that he uses to click the thumbs down button to cover comments he does not like. He must be reported to YouTube so they can investigate him for continual abuses of YouTube rules; for thumbs down abuses and for foul launguage in some of the comments in his usernames. Likely usernames of AngryAussie accounts: edeagleman nancidrew4 valcat9 belmont162
- It is good to see that your masters at realclimate gave you a new script to read from grastog. Dave.
- Let me tell you about Radio Hams. They are loonies and I mean that in the nicest way possible. They are fanatical about radio and are given the most impossible wavebands to work with. Through their combined knowledge of atmospherics, Solar physics and Astrophysics, they make these bands workable, then they are stolen back by the military! They are wondering why the Sun is in the funk it is and when or if it will return to 'normal' grastog has misrepresented them! Dave.
- These threads often feature arguers with strong opinions, dogmatically stated, but with little grasp of climate change, whether it involves CO2 forcing, feedbacks, or the like. It's tempting to reciprocate the dogmmatism, but that does little to help the occasional viewer who comes here hoping to learn something. In responding to these, Ive found email to offer me more scope to provide both direct answers and a list of valuable sources. Viewers who email me questions appear to share this view.
- CO2 has no forcing! The controlling GHG is H2O! Its feedbacks stabilise the Earths temperature, neither allowing it to rise too high, nor too low Whether TSI is a forcing agent, I'm open minded, it is after all TOTAL Solar Irradiance. We don't know too well what the various, changing, frequency components can do. SC24 is a radio ham site, which given history, probably makes them VERY qualified to comment, but one comment was that we were going straight to SC25. Dave.
- you are TRUMPHENT
- TRUMPHENT, you are grastog1313. It is you and AngryAussie using your several accounts to both post comments and to click the thumbs down button to cover comments you don't want to see. You are evil. You hate truth when it interferes with your selfish agenda. That is evil.
- Compared with CO2 forcing, solar cycle variations mediate only minor changes in global temperature. Even so, if one Googles either the SORCE solar irradiance data, or SolarCycle 24 flux data, it appears that cycle 24 is behaving normally, with reasonable likelihood the minimum was passed several months ago. It's important to remember that sunspot activity is only a rough guide to the actual solar energy reaching us, which is why irradiance and flux data are more useful than sunspots.
- inactive sun + -PDO = cooling cocktail
- NASA once again lowers it expectations for Solar Cycle 24. On 1/5/09 it says Solar Cycle 24 will less active than Solar Cycle 23. I expect there will be yet more lowered adjustments in coming months.
- Philip Stott: "I AM an environmentalist!What I'm beginning to see, is that dlobal warming is setting agendas which are actually damaging for the environment!" Dave.
- Typical... The only names I got right were Crichton & Schmidt lmao. Always was bad with names, sometimes forget my own & took me ten years to learn it! Now I'm getting older, I'm starting to forget it again :-P Dave.
- If you copy the watch part of the address, it's easier to find. Dave.
- I saw that debate and the reaction by Gavin and Company was the same as the reaction we get here when these folks are being ask a question.. They all Look like deer caught in Head lights. They are so use to say non sense speculation without being question that they have no clue what to answer to a simple question. They all, have the How dare you ask questions? Red face and anger all rolled in one look.
- Not the same but a good debate
- Global Warming Debate - Introduction, part 1 of 10 Here you go.
- If I remember correctly, A team led by the late, great Michael Chrichton, along with Roy Spencer and Björn Lomborg, trounced a team led by Gavin Schmidt, leaving the audience less inclined to believe measures against AGW. Gavin has refused to debate in public since! Doesn't grastogs stance therefore strike you as familiar? Dave.
- I think the key word was Tuition
- Say what you need to say in the open! Hiding away 'informing' the naive is a bit like taking them upstairs to see your etchings, they may not know enough to question the validity of what you say! As gerjanp says, 'a con-mans trick,' take the 'mark' to a place where you are not observed in your trickery! Dave.
- These threads often feature arguers with strong opinions, a fondness for ridicule, but little grasp of climate change, whether it involves CO2 forcing, feedbacks, or the like. It's tempting to reciprocate the hostility, but that does little to help the occasional viewer who comes here hoping to learn something. One alternative is to email me questions. I'll answer some directly (and politely), and cite authoritative sources for all. I suggest this because some have already found it very useful.
- You are probably right about the chapter, though 9 sticks in my head for some weird reason. Maybe it was Para 9, Chap 11 LOL See a few comments I made at watch?v=yIPTAUofWa8 View all comments to see nesting. Dave.
- I was wrong about the chapter should have been chapter 11.. Anywho I send an E mail to a friend of mine who a Climatologist and is involved in the fight against this fraud. I am like the IPCC " Most likely" sure that it is 7 and 5. :-)
- "I could also offer private tuition on climate change but prefer to be open to review by others." IMHO the sign of an intellectually honest scientist.
- If I remember correctly it was 56, 49 were discounted for reasons of bias, either political or economic. (Government appointees, only commenting on one paragraph of the whole report vested interest etc.) Dave.
