[patience]

In 1989 at a panel discussion in Louisville, Gore's position was that climate change needed further study, and was villified for that by James Hansen and Barry Commoner, among others on the panel, for not aggressively attacking the problem then.

IMHO, Gore knew the political landscape well enough to be certain that the issue wouldn't fly then, although I think he well understood the climate problem. I believe he has been doing what he believes will do the most good, at any given point in time, and has taken his lumps with dignity along the way. James Hansen is another case study of those who are truly trying to make a difference, and have paid for it with ridicule and worse.
Commoner, too, took the then unpopular position, and suffered likewise. If my analysis is correct, then they all deserve a salute for using the best tactics they could come up with to do the right thing.

[dissident]

So Gore is a hysteric for showing people a graph of CO2 concentration and how it is way above its normal range over the last 600,000 years but scumbags like Bush and Harper and all the other neocon swine who claim CO2 has no impact on climate are "reasonable"? Cashmere and is degree in professional nose picking would like to tell the world how every scientist with a real degree and years of hard work behind them are so wrong, but his two-second "analysis" is so right. Cashmere is a clown.

[Cashmere]

Bush is more of an idiot than Gore, to be sure, but being the lesser of two idiots does not remove the idiocy.

Gore pointed out CO2 levels over X number of years and pointed out how now it's at a high level comparatively?

Did he take the time to mention this (From Wikipedia, a liberal e-rag):
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he most powerful greenhouse gases are
* water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. (Note clouds typically affect climate differently from other forms of atmospheric water.)
* carbon dioxide, which causes 9–26%
* methane, which causes 4–9%
* ozone, which causes 3–7%

[erl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Hagakure_Leofman', 'T')his thread is all about attention seeking.

[dbruning]

Al Gore is absolutely riding the attention he gets from championing global warming.

So what?

We've seen people look for fortune and fame by inciting hatred, by starting wars, by all sorts of horrendous things.

You really think he's that bad for getting some attention while trying to point out we may be damaging our environment?

Please.

[Cashmere]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou really think he's that bad for getting some attention while trying to point out we may be damaging our environment?

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cashmere', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he most powerful greenhouse gases are:
* water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. (Note clouds typically affect climate differently from other forms of atmospheric water.)
* carbon dioxide, which causes 9–26%
* methane, which causes 4–9%
* ozone, which causes 3–7%

[Frank]

Al Gore's role has been to publicize something that he (and virtually every single credible scientist in the world) thinks is serious and needs more attention. I tend to agree with him.

Cashmere: what if YOU'RE wrong?

BTW, your statement that "Wikipedia is a liberal e-rag" reveals a lot about your view of things.

Sheesh.

[dohboi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Frank', '"')Cashmere: what if YOU'RE wrong? BTW, your statement that "Wikipedia is a liberal e-rag" reveals a lot about your view of things."

[Hagakure_Leofman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dohboi', 'I')f cash was on fire and someone pointed it out to him, I'm sure he would keep on accusing them of hysteria and heaping insult and injury on them until he was finally completely consumed by the flames whose existence he was so adamantly denying.

[Hagakure_Leofman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'S')top attacking the messenger and grow up. Infantile asswipe.

[mos6507]

[Homesteader]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cashmere', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou really think he's that bad for getting some attention while trying to point out we may be damaging our environment?

[dohboi]

OK, back to Myanmar. Deaths are now estimated to be above 100 thousand and climbing, and the Chinese earthquake victims are now piling into the tens of thousands and beyond. So what we have here is adding up to a combined death total coming into the 100s of thousands from two events in the same week.

But were they two distinct events?

The cyclone that wiped away so many lives also abruptly moved millions of tons of water onto land that had been mostly dry--free of that added weight. About a year ago I read something about how rising sea levels could place so much new weight on th edges of land masses that they could help tip tectonic plates enough to trigger earthquakes, but I can't find that source now. Has anyone seen such an analysis of these two events or of the connection between rising sea levels and earthquakes? The timing and geography seem to be about right. Any help on this would be appreciated.

[Smudger]

Cashmere
some things you really should look at calmly:
What Gore has said;
What events have been happening across the world; and
and how most sceintists now view the issue.

I think your note about water vapour/methane etc has been very ably dealt with already i.e. C02 is the current "flow" which is causing the warming - frankly, albeit I recognise it is rather obvious, if it was the others as well we would be roasting already!

You may want to look at the size and, importantly the thickness of the arctic these last few summers - hmm there seems to be a trend there doesn't there. It maybe, as someone looking calmly at the issue that you put a diary note to check its thickness in Sept.

Those pesky IPCC scientists have rapidly been found out to be too conservative in their estimates ignoring positive feedbacks such as less snow less relfection etc. The swines we have been misled into thinking we had at least ten years to sort this out. well they had better have some books down their trousers when they get questions on this as I am sure it will be six of the best for them all!

Anyway I'll leave it to you to reflect on your Gore/hysterics view as it appears that he was pretty accurate in what he has been saying - increasingly so as time marches on. best Smudger

[blujay]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Homesteader', 't')remendously eloquent well deserved verbal ass-kicking

[arretium]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cashmere', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think he won a Nobel Prize for it. It's quite good.

[Slowpoke]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dohboi', 'A')bout a year ago I read something about how rising sea levels could place so much new weight on th edges of land masses that they could help tip tectonic plates enough to trigger earthquakes, but I can't find that source now. Has anyone seen such an analysis of these two events or of the connection between rising sea levels and earthquakes? The timing and geography seem to be about right. Any help on this would be appreciated.

[MacG]

Oh dear, are you people still kicking this old dead horse? There are a couple of barn-wide holes in the theory about AGW, and I find it hilarious that people on a peak-oil site -of all places- missed the most obvious one:

The IPCC scenarios are built on assumptions of oil WHICH IS NOT THERE!

Please go and check. The IPCC are even more optimistic about oil availability than CERA (and we used to mock CERA on this site - those were the days).

Anyone who believe in the IPCC and Al Gore has nothing to get from this site (last time I checked the site was about Peak Oil), because the IPCC and Al Gore are promising happy motoring for at LEAST another 100 years. Even for the Chinese and the Indians.