Gore's graph in his moved is wrong!!
Green Turtle
that Gore uses in his movie.
The following clip is from 20/20, and takes some footage from Gore's movie.
(in fact, the clip starts out with Gore showing the graph).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1_eaZ74Z_A
If you watch the beginning of the above clip, what is most amazing is that
the co2 graph from Gore's movie shows that co2 increases occurred AFTER the
temperature rose. Wow, is that amazing or what?
Can anyone here explain to me why Gore would use such a deceptive graph, and
is basically outright lying as to that graph shows how co2 drives
temperature? Gore's caught red handed here!!!
It's absolutely deceitful of Gore to use a graph of ice samples in which it
shows temperature rising first, and THEN co2 levels followed.
Even more amazing is staff from the show 20/20 news show asked Gore for an
interview.
Can anybody here explain to me why Gore would refuse to go on TV?
Remember we're not talking about some conservative blog web site or some
conservative radio talk show host, we're talking about the widely respected
news show 20/20.
If Gore has such good science on his part he should be most willing to
appear on TV to promote his message. How come Gore does not want to promote
this? Why is Gore so scared of an interview?
Furthermore why should Gore resort to deceptions and lies to make his
point?
If Gore has good science on its part, why lie?
The 2nd part of the video shows how the surface temperature is rise FASTER
then the part of the atmosphere where greenhouse warming occurs. Global
warming says that temperature rises should be the other way around (does it
not???).
Super Turtle
Ouroboros_Rex
"Green Turtle" <Super...@greenpiece.com> wrote in message
news:Mn67j.8524$jq2.5045@pd7urf1no...
> I've not sure if any of the people here has seen the graph on co2 levels
> that Gore uses in his movie.
>
> The following clip is from 20/20, and takes some footage from Gore's
> movie.
> (in fact, the clip starts out with Gore showing the graph).
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1_eaZ74Z_A
>
> If you watch the beginning of the above clip, what is most amazing is that
> the co2 graph from Gore's movie shows that co2 increases occurred AFTER
> the
> temperature rose. Wow, is that amazing or what?
>
> Can anyone here explain to me why Gore would use such a deceptive graph,
> and
> is basically outright lying as to that graph shows how co2 drives
> temperature? Gore's caught red handed here!!!
Year-old hoax. yawn
Tunderbar
Yep. He isn't interested in dialogue, he's interested in venues that
only allow for monologue.
Green Turtle
news:fjjmtl$2ki$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> Year-old hoax. yawn
>
What the hell you talking about? that video clip is from the TV news show
20/20, and was made after Gore had received the noble peace prize.
in case you're wondering, the source of the graft was from Corazon movie,
and the ice data does not show Co. two driving temperature, but in fact
shows a reverse. my whole point here is why does Gore have to use something
that doesn't prove his point at all, what is the have to use of graft and
save look of Co. two's driving temperature who when in fact that very same
graph shows the exact opposite.
This is just a question of honesty and integrity, and why does a person have
to behave like a used car salesman to make its point if he had good sold
science on the side?
I'm a person that wants a logical reasoned debate and good quality science
here. We're certainly not getting that from Gore. The difference here is
that Gore is the one getting the noble peace prize, and thus should be held
up to a high standard of integrity, apparently you missed this point
completely here.
You're completely avoiding the fact that that graph shows temperature rising
first, and then carbon dioxide increases following. Remember we're talking
about Gore's graf from his own movie!
Quite amazing that is absolutely zero responses here, and just like when
Gore was asked for an interview he ran to the hills. We seeing the same
level of intellectual honesty in this group here. No one's going to take up
the fact that Gore's using fraud to make its point about carbon dioxide
driving temperature.
Super turtle
Ouroboros_Rex
> "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
> news:fjjmtl$2ki$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>
>> Year-old hoax. yawn
>>
>
> What the hell you talking about? that video clip is from the TV news show
> 20/20, and was made after Gore had received the noble peace prize.
>
> in case you're wondering, the source of the graft was from Corazon movie,
> and the ice data does not show Co. two driving temperature, but in fact
> shows a reverse. my whole point here is why does Gore have to use
> something that doesn't prove his point at all, what is the have to use of
> graft and save look of Co. two's driving temperature who when in fact that
> very same graph shows the exact opposite.
> This is just a question of honesty and integrity, and why does a person
> have to behave like a used car salesman to make its point if he had good
> sold science on the side?
>
> I'm a person that wants a logical reasoned debate and good quality science
> here. We're certainly not getting that from Gore. The difference here is
> that Gore is the one getting the noble peace prize, and thus should be
> held up to a high standard of integrity, apparently you missed this point
> completely here.
>
> You're completely avoiding the fact that that graph shows temperature
> rising first, and then carbon dioxide increases following. Remember we're
> talking about Gore's graf from his own movie!
I'm not avoiding it at all. It's not a problem for the theory, it has ben
explained here a dozen times, and it's old news and irrelevant. Period.
Green Turtle
> I'm not avoiding it at all. It's not a problem for the theory, it has
> ben explained here a dozen times, and it's old news and irrelevant.
> Period.
You mean it's not a problem for Gore to use deceitful tactics to make his
point? You mean it is not important that Gore is being deceitful and lying
here?
That graph does not show co2 driving temperature.
I will ask the question again:
You'll have to explain to me why does Gore in his movie have to use a
dishonest and deceitful tactic to try and prove a point?
That graph does not show carbon dioxide driving temperature, so therefore
why does Gore saying it does and is using it to prove his point?
I am not implying in any way shape or form that the graph also disproves co2
driving temapture.
However, Gore's using it the wrong way and we need an explanation as to why
Gore needs to use deceitful tactics to convince people? If you have a good
science on your side why be a used car salesman?
And then you stand here and wonder why this issue is in trouble now?
So you mean you want a debate on this issue, but you don't care about any
kind of dishonesty in that debate?
I don't have any problems someone being dishonest, but I certainly do when
this movie's been shown to children and people in schools and being used to
prove points by way of dishonesty.
Why are you even bothering to post here if you don't care about any
dishonesty in this debate?
Super Turtle
Ouroboros_Rex
> "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
> news:fjkbdg$at6$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>
>> I'm not avoiding it at all. It's not a problem for the theory, it has
>> ben explained here a dozen times, and it's old news and irrelevant.
>> Period.
>
> You mean it's not a problem for Gore to use deceitful tactics to make his
> point?
Gore's Ice Core Graph - debunking the denialist liars:
http://tinyurl.com/33enej
Green Turtle
>
> Gore's Ice Core Graph - debunking the denialist liars:
> http://tinyurl.com/33enej
>
Amazing, as that article does not address this problem at all. That article
clarifies that Gores graph does not disprove, or change the issue of co2
driving temperature. And, it even admits that co2 rise can certainly follow
temperature. However, the article in NO WAY address the fact that the graph
shows co2 FOLWLING the temperature rise. It 100% complete ignores that Gore
is using that graph to prove a point in which the graph does not.
It is a pure rubbish response. the article does NOT address that Gore's
being deceptive here, and that still is the real point of my post.
Even worse, your article actually says that the ice records are ONLY A LOCAL
VIEW of global temperatures. If that is the case, then it makes Gore's case
WORSE. Why is now gore using a graph that represents ONLY LOCALIZED
TEMPERATURES to prove global warming? That article actually proves that
Gore's case is even WORSE then I thought!
So, now we not only have a graph that shows co2 following temperature rise,
but also the fact that these ice samples ARE ONLY LOCAL WEATHER
measurements...and that means Gore is even being MORE dishonest and
misleading.
So, now we have to ask why is Gore using a graph of local temperatures then?
(and, MORE important FAILS TO MENTION this issue). At least the article you
quoted tries to be clear and fair, but in doing so actually makes Gore's use
of that Graph MORE dishonest.
Super Turtle