If you guys are here from the US Politics discussion board, see this massive collection of evidence refuting global warming claims, including the ignorant claim that Earth is still warming and the polar ice caps are melting.
————————————————-
Since Al Gore refuses to debate reputable skeptics of global warming, preferring instead to spread his propaganda unchallenged in the mass media, Demand Debate decided to splice together their own ‘debate with Al Gore’ by comparing his claims with their factually-based science.
The result: The Al Gore Debates Global Warming Video. Click the link to see the video on Youtube, or embedded below:
It’s a short but very informative 9 minute video, comparing the claims made by Al Gore in his (thoroughly debunked) film An Inconvenient Truth with the REAL facts of the matter.
Below I take you through the highlights (i.e. parts that work well as screen-captured graphics), with explanation, but I highly encourage you to spend the 9 minutes to patiently sit through Al Bore’s outright and knowing lies and then find out the truth behind the CO2 smokescreen.
Comments follow pics. Most pics of graphs can be enlarged:
————————
It starts off with Al Gore (yes, I intentionally chose the least flattering moment to screen-capture)…
Showing off his CO2-levels and temperature graph.
Notice something? If you look closely, does the temperature line (above) actually start moving after the CO2 line (below)? More on that later…
But first off, the skeptical scientists immediately debunk Gore’s claim that CO2 levels have never been as high as now by revealing that in the past, CO2 levels have been 3 to 10 times higher (3rd paragraph of link) than today’s measly 0.0383% of the atmosphere!
The global temperature record shows a very curious trend – the warming of the world occured before 1940, when industry was nowhere near the capacity of modern times. Yet, during the post WWII industrial boom when massive amounts of CO2 were being spewed into the atmosphere, temperatures actually decreased!
Here it is closer up again.
The temperature record for the Arctic shows it even more clearly. Again, most of the temperature rise occurs before 1940. But when industry (and carbon emissions) masively boomed, the temperature dropped until 1975!
Stunning. This is why Al Gore spends so little time on the supposedly grand-indicting temperature/CO2 chart, and doesn’t allow us a close look at it. Even when he made An Inconvenient Truth, he knew that the data showed CO2 levels following temperature levels, not the other way round as he falsely and dishonestly claims!
A close up, showing the clear 800 year lag where temperature goes up and down, then CO2 levels follow by going up and down 800 years later. The AGW crowd cannot satisfactorily explain away with their illogical claims of positive feedback, which would have resulted in temperatrues shooting upwards nonstop until the Earth became like Venus.
Super close up. In short, on the matter of the temperature-CO2 relationship, Al Gore is trying to sell us a totally reversed cause-and-effect, like claiming that someone getting shot in the head is caused by that person dying of brain trauma.
And to finish, I present the credentials of the array of respectable scientists who flatly contradict and reject Al Gore’s shamster junk science. Global warming fearmongering hysterians, I dare you to accuse every one of these men of being on the payroll of ExxonMobil or G.W. Bush.
Professor Nir Shaviv, Institute of Physics, University of Jerusalem
And also Professor Emeritus Frederick Singer, Former Director, US National Weather Service
So much for ‘scientific consensus on global warming’ and ‘no reputable scientists deny the reality of CO2’s role in causing global warming’. If the 99.95% of the whole world’s scientists rejected global warming, its proponents would still portray it as having the support of the majority.
Tags: al gore, Al Gore Debates Global Warming, An Inconvenient Truth, climate change, Demand Debate, global warming
THE SCOTTTCAST 
December 14, 07 at 6:16 pm
Thanks..wouldn’t have been able to locate this myself. Al Gore fooled many, including govts and the Nobel Peace Prize committee.. and that will not be on his conscience at all because he is a politician.
December 15, 07 at 10:27 am
Al Gore’s f**t is a greater threat to his immediate environment. A great way by way of a prophet of doom to undermine the government of the day and make big bundles for the “pro-environment” industries in their first wave of fleecing prices for their products.
December 15, 07 at 11:11 am
Heh heh… Welcome back wits0!
December 15, 07 at 11:35 am
I have always maintained that one of the main causes of climate change is Al Gore. Look at the lummox`s build:
He consumes much more and lets out more methane. He represents greed in all its worst forms.
December 15, 07 at 12:09 pm
It’s true – meat consumption is the true enemy of the Earth!
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/09/schism_in_moonb.html
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/06/meat_is_a_crime.html
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/09/moonbats_lay_gl.html
And Al Gore is probably the biggest consumer of methanimals of all:
Witness his…
Greed:
And dishonesty:
And energy-use/carbon-emissions hypocrisy:
January 13, 08 at 5:36 pm
[…] Miljø, MindControl, Research, Statistics, global opvarmning — Sonia Wahnloop @ 10:36 am Video: Refuting Al Gore on CO2 Levels and Temperature Since Al Gore refuses to debate reputable skeptics of global warming, preferring instead to spread […]
April 23, 08 at 11:17 am
[…] See directly related at Video: Refuting Al Gore on CO2 Levels and Temperature […]
July 16, 08 at 4:21 am
I appreciate the information. i’m not a scientist but there is one thing i don’t understand. If we as a country (world) decide to reduce carbon emissions significantly and Al Gore is wrong about global warming, are we worse off? Won’t this create whole new industries with high paying jobs to develop more environmentally cleaner technologies? Won’t this help promote cleaner air to breathe? I don’t see the downside to action. However, if Gore is right, the results of inaction are catastrophic.
Dan
July 16, 08 at 9:09 am
Well Dan, the thing is all the current less-CO2 technologies do not come without significant costs.
To wit: Biofuels are causing food prices and shortages to skyrocket. Solar, wind and wave power are insufficient and currently not cost effective. Even fuel-efficient, less-CO2-emitting hybrid vehicles cause massive enviromental pollution due to the manufacture of their batteries: Hybrids: Environmentally Ruinous (looks literally like hell)
And don’t get me started on carbon caps. Without the necessary technology, trying to reduce CO2 emissions or facing fines has cost Europe several billion in extra costs. See Kyoto Protocol: A STUPIDLY Expensive 10-year Old Child for details.
The only (and best) viable alternative energy source is nuclear power. It is clean, CO2 free, sufficient and proven. But thanks to the Green lobby and scare-mongering films like The China Syndrome, America refuses to even consider this option. (Meanwhile, France’s energy needs are 80% supplied by nuclear with no problems whatsoever, and they even export energy to Britain!)
Besides, lower CO2 levels means less to be sequestered by green plants during photosynthesis. That is why we have glass greenhouses – not just for the heat and sunlight, but for the more concentrated CO2 levels to encourage growth. More CO2 would mean better crop and forest growth.
Overall, all the benefits you hope to see can be provided directly by other policies and technologies. To wit, if you have a headache, you don’t cut off your head – even though that would stop the problem.
Believing in Global Warming is Like A Hole in the Head
July 20, 08 at 8:53 am
There is a reason why the global warming alarmists are intentionally misleading the sheep. It is all about the money and power (political) that goes along with carbon taxes and a world government. Would we be better off reducing CO2? Probably not; it is NOT a pollutant. The amounts we are talking about are, for all intents and purposes, trace amounts when viewed in the context of the atmosphere as a whole. Indeed, vegetation thrives on it. If you want to be “better safe than sorry,” it would be wise to be safe by avoiding men like Al Gore who intentionally lie in order to manipulate billions.
July 23, 08 at 12:52 pm
Hello,
Ok, here’s a lesson for everyone that is buying this debunking.
First off, anytime a so-called “scientist” makes an absolute statement (which means they state “always” or “never” or “all”; you can bet they are not really a scientist, because there is never 100% in the scientific method.
It is also clear from both Al Gore’s and this so called ‘debunking’ site that the patterns between CO2 and temperature are not exact, and when you zero in on any 100 year span from the 650,000 year span, you can find areas that the graphs will move in opposite directions of each other.
So, as soon as the debunking “scientist” made this statement, quote:
“every one of them shows the same thing”
It raised great questions as to the validity of all their statements.
It also does not look to me like the CO2 follows the temperature except in some isolated spots, certainly not “all”.
It should also be noted that well before mans contribution of CO2, clearly there was ups and downs in both CO2 and temperature; therefore, there are at least some natural processes effecting the variation.
Given the fact that there are natural processes effecting the direction of both CO2 and temperature, you would need to know the quantitative effect of the natural process to be able to truly conclude that a 100 year section from the 650,000 year section is not simply a period that the natural process more than compensated for the man made CO2 effect.
Given this, if you look at the 650,000 year graph just before man made CO2 emissions started, the trend was downward, therefore, it is quite plausible that during the early 20th century, the natural process still had enough of an effect to counter mans CO2 effect temporarily.
Another point, there is a big difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. This debunking site is using deductive reasoning (which relys upon only the evidence chosen by the presenter), inductive reasoning used by Al Gore requires the reconciliation of all available evidence.
Hope everyone here learns something about these fallacious debunking sites.
Here is a website about 9/11 that uses only inductive reasoning and the scientific method.
http://www.ae911truth.org
Take care, and keep thinking.
July 23, 08 at 12:54 pm
Hello,
Ok, here’s a lesson for everyone that is buying this BS debunking.
First off, anytime a so-called “scientist” makes an absolute statement (which means they state “always” or “never” or “all”; you can bet they are not really a scientist, because there is never 100% in the scientific method.
It is also clear from both Al Gore’s and this so called ‘debunking’ site that the patterns between CO2 and temperature are not exact, and when you zero in on any 100 year span from the 650,000 year span, you can find areas that the graphs will move in opposite directions of each other.
So, as soon as the debunking “scientist” made this statement, quote:
“every one of them shows the same thing”
It raised great questions as to the validity of all their statements.
It also does not look to me like the CO2 follows the temperature except in some isolated spots, certainly not “all”.
It should also be noted that well before mans contribution of CO2, clearly there was ups and downs in both CO2 and temperature; therefore, there are at least some natural processes effecting the variation.
Given the fact that there are natural processes effecting the direction of both CO2 and temperature, you would need to know the quantitative effect of the natural process to be able to truly conclude that a 100 year section from the 650,000 year section is not simply a period that the natural process more than compensated for the man made CO2 effect.
Given this, if you look at the 650,000 year graph just before man made CO2 emissions started, the trend was downward, therefore, it is quite plausible that during the early 20th century, the natural process still had enough of an effect to counter mans CO2 effect temporarily.
Another point, there is a big difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. This debunking site is using deductive reasoning (which relys upon only the evidence chosen by the presenter), inductive reasoning used by Al Gore requires the reconciliation of all available evidence.
Hope everyone here learns something about these fallacious debunking sites.
Here is a website about 9/11 that uses only inductive reasoning and the scientific method. http://www.ae911truth.org
Take care, and keep thinking.
July 23, 08 at 2:30 pm
In that case, Al Gore and the IPCC are actually using deductive reasoning (according to your definition).
Case in point, no one has up till now proven that a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels is actually the main cause of a rise in temperature.
If you don’t believe me, try and google search it – you will not find any solid citation of a scientific study that actually shows CO2 levels affect temperature levels in the world.
What Gore and his cronies have is the claim and assumption that CO2 levels cause temperature rise. They see both rising, and immediately assume that it is CO2’s fault – not any other potential factor such as cloud cover, solar activity, the Earth’s orbit, methane, water vapour etc. that are also simultaneously happening.
Then they go and find evidence that suits their hypothesis, while ignoring evidence that opposes it. Ergo, ‘deductive reasoning’ by your definition.
For if the natural cycle only slowed down human-caused global warming, why haven’t temperatures risen in 10 years, and why are they headed for a 10-year decline – despite more and more CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere?
By the way, global warming fearmongers regularly claim that ‘all’ scientists believe in global warming, or ‘all’ evidence points to it. Which, by your definition again, means that they are not scientific.
The same goes for 9/11 Truthers, who know that Bush demolished those towers with explosives, and gather evidence supporting that idea while ignoring the valid criticisms of their theories.
July 24, 08 at 6:16 am
thank you
January 7, 09 at 7:27 am
This is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, global warming is a naturally occurring process, but humans are speeding up the process to a dangerous speed. Instead of trying to figure out who’s to blame, we all should be trying to find a solution. And if someone doesn’t find Bill Gates extremely intelligent, then I feel sorry for that person.
January 7, 09 at 9:08 am
I contend that humans are NOT speeding up the process at any significant level.
Please explain by what mechanism you think humans are contributing to the warming of the planet.
I submit my arguments against human-released carbon dioxide at Five Carbon Dioxide & Global Warming Questions and The Top-20 Carbon Emitting Nations Add Only 0.00034147% More CO2 Yearly and invite you to debunk my claims.
July 8, 09 at 10:29 pm
[…] Originally Posted by Danny Sigh…the global warning deniers at it again? My position is that GW is real and deniers fooling themselves for political partisan purposes. I take said position because of raw data. You guys like to bash Gore for some reason but is there anyone in this thread that can refute the simple data in these charts? Every time I look at it it scares the shit outta me. CO2 clearly dictates temperature. The levels are going up and the temp is going up with it unless something is done. Maybe if Gore looked for some causation instead of just correlation and looked farther back in time than 1000 years (climate change takes time, after all), he might have picked up some of this. Video: Refuting Al Gore on CO2 Levels and Temperature BUUUUURRRRNING HOT […]
August 25, 09 at 7:35 pm
Thank you. Would not have been able to locate this myself
September 1, 09 at 11:06 pm
I take said position because of raw data. You guys like to bash Gore for some reason but is there anyone in this thread that can refute the simple data in these charts?
September 2, 09 at 11:32 am
Simple data? You mean like how temperature rises first, FOLLOWED 800 years LATER by CO2? The exact OPPOSITE of what Al Gore claims?
September 2, 09 at 11:15 pm
zayıflama hapları
September 3, 09 at 12:47 pm
That’s Turkish for slimming pills haha
September 3, 09 at 7:15 pm
uzak dogudan
September 3, 09 at 7:16 pm
harıka bir ürün
September 8, 09 at 6:41 pm
Thank would’t have been able to locate this myself
October 22, 09 at 12:45 am
zayıflama
November 9, 09 at 5:52 am
Видеоролик однозначно в тему! Меня давно интересовало, как можно научиться выкапывать на ютюбе настолько суперовские ролики… По поиску дофига всягоко находится, а чтоб отыскать хоть что-то стоящее – так это аж нуна пол дня, а то и больше потратить….
November 19, 09 at 8:19 pm
vakum sitesi
December 6, 09 at 9:27 am
I like this site
February 23, 10 at 6:42 am
nice sharing. even very good. congratulations.
March 28, 10 at 8:23 am
This is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, global warming is a naturally occurring process, but humans are speeding up the process to a dangerous speed. Instead of trying to figure out who’s to blame, we all should be trying to find a solution. And if someone doesn’t find Bill Gates extremely intelligent, then I feel sorry for that person.
March 29, 10 at 7:20 pm
1) No, we are not speeding it up.
http://globalwarmingisunfactual.wordpress.com/
A peer reviewed study by three climate researchers in the Journal of Geophysical Research concludes that none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity
2) Global warming is distracting us from real enviromental issues.
3) Bill Gates is a computer guy. And he didn’t invent DOS, so he’s basically a savvy businessman, and with no understanding of climate science. Kinda like Al Gore.
July 16, 10 at 5:03 pm
hot pepper
zayıflama
zayıflama hapı
July 17, 10 at 5:53 am
See directly related at Video: Refuting Al Gore on CO2 Levels and Temperature
August 25, 10 at 3:05 pm
Nice Sharing
August 31, 10 at 4:16 pm
This is fantastic! can’t wait to see more.
October 5, 10 at 6:40 pm
gögüs büyütücü
gögüs büyütücüler
gögüs kremleri
gögüs kremi
gögüs büyütücü hap
October 5, 10 at 10:37 pm
In Cantonese, does that mean?
fei po chor tan chea
pon chuk pon chuk
tan chea teak lok sui
fei po ng kin cho
December 15, 10 at 8:15 am
Nice Sharing…………….
March 9, 11 at 9:26 pm
thanks you for information.
April 17, 11 at 9:02 pm
thanks for great information admin.
April 18, 11 at 9:04 am
Dan is absolutely right and can counter any argument against global warming. If Al Gore’s wrong, we get cleaner air and more sustainability. If the deniers are wrong, we have worldly catastrophe. Simple as that.
April 18, 11 at 11:35 am
Actually, not at all as simple as that.
You naively think that there is no cost or drawback involved in cutting CO2 emissions.
But the reality is, ‘green costs green’ – that is, going ‘environment friendly’ costs a lot of greenbacks. Here’s a rundown:
Doubled electricity costs in Australia.
Tens of billions lost to Kyoto Protocol adherence in Europe – with only 1.5% decrease in CO2 emissions.
Wind and solar double the cost of current non-green electricity generation in Canada.
2.2 jobs lost for every 1 green job created in Spain.
Believe me, if cutting CO2 levels cost nothing, none of us would object!
In truth, global warming is a hoax, a distraction, a poseur and pretender that distracts from REAL environmental causes!
You want to argue? Argue with this list of climate data fakery and this list of evidence against global warming.
PS. If Al Gore is so sure that the sea levels are rising, then why did he buy a mansion by the seaside? As if his energy waste that is 22 times more than the average American wasn’t Gaia-hurting enough!
Al Gore is a scammer, he doesn’t even believe his own propaganda about energy use and CO2 emissions and hotter temperatures and rising seas – he’s only in it for the billions in money.
May 22, 11 at 1:52 pm
Your assertion “If the 99.95% of the whole world’s scientists rejected global warming, its proponents would still portray it as having the support of the majority.” Has no evidence to support it and shows your dogmatic, dismissive view towards reality.
May 22, 11 at 2:14 pm
It’s called exaggeration for effect, look it up.
You know who else exaggerates for effect? Al Gore and his dozen foot sea level rise, the IPCC and their completely melted Himalayan glaciers in a few decades, and Phil Jones’ East Anglia CRU and their rising temperature graph.
Except that, you know, they actually pass their exaggerated lies off as unadulterated scientific fact.
December 23, 11 at 5:15 am
thanks for this article, its really good
December 23, 11 at 5:17 am
thanks for this sharing
April 14, 12 at 4:20 pm
who else exaggerates for effect? Al Gore and his dozen foot sea level rise, the IPCC and their completely melted Himalayan glaciers in a few decades, and Phil Jones’ East Anglia CRU and their rising temperature graph
August 25, 12 at 3:05 am
nice sharing. thanks for great information admin.
August 25, 12 at 3:09 am
thanks for this sharing
October 4, 12 at 12:11 am
nice sharing pijamanette bayan pijama takımları
October 4, 12 at 4:07 pm
thanks for great information..
March 21, 13 at 1:51 am
thanks
July 25, 14 at 2:23 am
Heh heh… Welcome back wits0!
November 6, 14 at 9:52 pm
This is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, global warming is a naturally occurring process, but humans are speeding up the process to a dangerous speed. Instead of trying to figure out who’s to blame, we all should be trying to find a solution. And if someone doesn’t find Bill Gates extremely intelligent, then I feel sorry for that person.
November 6, 14 at 9:53 pm
Your assertion “If the 99.95% of the whole world’s scientists rejected global warming, its proponents would still portray it as having the support of the majority.” Has no evidence to support it and shows your dogmatic, dismissive view towards reality.
November 14, 14 at 10:31 am
It’s hyperbole and snark.
Just because Bill Gates is a genius in computer programming and business, does not mean he is similarly well versed in other subjects – especially if the data he is being fed has already been manipulated (over and over again) by proponents of AGW theory.
By the way, please explain this recent chart showing rapidly rising CO2 levels with NO corresponding rise in temperature, according to your ardent belief in runaway global warming. (From collection of evidence at http://globalwarmingisunfactual.wordpress.com/ )
January 24, 17 at 6:42 am
I do not even know how I finished up here, but I assumed
this submit used to be great. I do not recognize who you might be but certainly you’re going to a famous blogger in case you are not already.
Cheers!
January 24, 17 at 7:11 am
Forza buca !