Al Gore Refuses To Dignify Debate: "It's Not A Matter Of Theory"

Former Vice President Al Gore must not have been too surprised when it happened, but a well-known climate skeptic confronted him at the Wall Street Journal's ECO:nomics forum in Santa Monica. The skeptic, Bjorn Lomborg, is a favorite of conservatives who would rather not spend on the environment. David Sassoon introduced us to Lomborg's stock question in July. Earlier, Jason Linkins decried Lomborg's invited appearance on CNN. Here's what the Wall Street Journal had on the confrontation this week:

[Gore] was challenged by Mr. Lomborg, the Danish skeptical environmentalist who thinks the world would be better off spending more money on health and education issues than curbing carbon emissions.

"I don't mean to corner you, or maybe I do mean to corner you, but would you be willing to have a debate with me on that point?" asked the polo-shirt wearing Dane.

"I want to be polite to you," Mr. Gore responded. But, no. "The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a 'on the one hand, on the other hand' issue," he said. "It's not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake," he added.

WATCH Gore's other comments -- including his response to an audience question from T. Boone Pickens:

Comments

[Top 411]

I can understand why Gore refuses to debate anyone. It`s hard to justify a debate over junk science, his huge mansion and his private jets.

[doriath22]

Junk Science? Like you can even tell the difference? Stop listening to the liars on Faux News and educate YOURSELF first. (And what does the size of Mr Gore' s house have to do with anything?)

[SonofLiberty1]

Top 411,

I doubt sincerly if you could tell real science from junk science!

[seakat]

Last night as I was reading a post about global warming an the usual deniers comments, I had a wicked hope for them. I'm kind of hoping they all own low bank water front beach property. Louisana, Florida, or some spots along the California coast would be good.

They'd have a front row seat then?

[Senseimilla]

SCIENCE as a method of understanding our world is DEPENDENT upon the ability of the scientist to be able to QUESTION (or debate if you'd like) EXISTING THEORIES..­. This is what is at the HEART of the scientific method is the ability to enhance our existing body of knowledge with BETTER understanding. You yokels who keep crying "THE DEBATE IS OVER!" are basically doing the same thing the Pope did when he excommunicated Galileo for stating (despite the obvious evidence that everything revolves around us on the Earth) that the Earth *gasp* revolves around the Sun...

The debate must NEVER be over, lest we regress back into the Dark Ages...

Btw, 3000 yrs at most of VERY IFFY climate data using incomplete climate modeling techniques compared to the 4,500,000,000 years the Earth has been around? Are you KIDDING ME? The hubris of some scientific egos is astounding­...

[samuel99]

So you're saying the debate on whether or not the earth orbits the sun is not over? And the question about whether the earth is flat is still open. Should Gore debate these questions too?

[rikkirighteous]

I doubt he could.

[Senseimilla]

Yes. I am saying that the debate on whether or not the earth orbits the sun is not over. For all YOU know, it could be a phenomena in which our observation limits us to perceiving what appears to be us revolving around the Sun, where in fact, the opposite was actually true all this time. Very small chance, but it's there.

Now, given that this chance is so small, it is deemed less worthy of scientific pursuit than, say, finding a neutron star; so there you have it.

[AngieMom57]

To pollute or not to pollute that is the question?

[Senseimilla]

To deny 3rd world countries cheap energy through sanctions against basic fuel technologies based on pseudo-scientific whims or to apply our resources to tackle the real problems in the world today that is the question?

[Exusian]

Your opening two sentences are dead on: scientific understanding is continually challenged, as it should and must be. What's missing is challenged by whom?

The only answer to that question that makes any sense at all is by scientists themselves. More specifically, scientists actually trained and qualified in relevant fields. And they do so, through their own work published in the pages of peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at scientific conferences.

[Senseimilla]

Yes, I agree whole-heartedly and acknowledge the importance of the peer-review process in the scientific community.

It is a shame, then, that much of the scientific community (up to 30,000 willing to come forward, who knows how many more in the woodworks) is discounted in relevant discussions pertaining to the energy future of our country.

[Senseimilla]

Isn't it a shame, then, that 30,000 climate change skeptics (scientists, for that matter) are left out of many a discussion?

[Exusian]

Please provide this list of 30,000 climate change skeptics who are documented scientists.
Not TV weathermen, not medical doctors and dentists, not computer programers, but actual trained scientists practicing in a field relevant to the study of climate.

Thanks in advance.

[aBr1t]

Scientific method refers to techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.­[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses­.[2]

FYI

you debunk your own argument with this one comment

You yokels who keep crying "THE DEBATE IS OVER!" are basically doing the same thing the Pope did when he excommunicated Galileo

you are the pope :)

[Senseimilla]

"correcting and integrating previous knowledge"

I'm sorry, but that sounds a LOT like what I've been saying.

[Pharos]

Scientists are by nature skeptical. The heart of science is not about questioning existing theories. Scientists question things all the time. Measurement is a key part of science and you don't even mention it. Why do you think the models are incomplete? What do you mean by incomplete - hint, it's a trick question.

[Senseimilla]

Clever, but not substantive. Your statement does not deny that these modeling techniques are incomplete (because by their very nature as 'scientific' models they will always be incomplete, I get it) and so to clarify my viewpoint: The DEBATE IS NOT OVER....

[Senseimilla]

"The heart of science is not about questioning existing theories. Scientists question things all the time."

Just had to add... This is rather contradictory, no? If not, please clarify.

[Senseimilla]

"Measurement is a key part of science and you don't even mention it."

Logical fallacy... Because I don't mention it (if you read my post carefully, I am not 'defining' science...­) does not mean I don't acknowledge it as "a key part of science".

For someone who makes a lotta noise about being scientific (read some of your other posts), this post is hardly representative.

[oregonideas]

Shame on Al Gore! Of course he should debate climate change. Then next week let's have the evolution/­creationis­t debate and let's following it the following week with the "flat earth" debate. Sometimes I think the one thing conservatives conserve the most is common sense, since they use so little of it. Come on folks, let's move forward...­.as Mr Gore says, the science is there, now it's time to act on it.

[DocSyracuse]

Despite Mr. Gore's refusal, it's likely that there will be a public forum for the debate of AGW in the near future.

When fines or carbon-taxes become law, I'm certain there will be lawsuits mounted to address the validity of AGW.

I'm looking forward to this greatly.

BTW- It's suspect that Gore won't debate the issue further. Honestly, the science of this subject is constantly evolving. Long standing theories in mathmatics, physics, bio-science are constantly re-evaluated in the face of new evidence (and many theories have been revised on the basis of new data). Why not do an update on AGW, with public debate? What could possibly be the downside? If the data overwhealmingly supports Mr. Gore's argument, he should take the opportunity to silence the skeptics.

[aBr1t]

Mr. Gore's argument, he should take the opportunity to silence the skeptics.

Nope because there is nothing to debate on this issue, the only thing to debate is how to impliment the reduction in emmisions, the actual debate about IF we are having an effect on our planet is done and dusted..

and if you think this is a hoax then i sugest every nay sayer who owns a pc read this "just above the comment box"

Asus Bamboo Green Laptop
Powered by Intel® Core™2 Duo, with 12.3kg less CO² emission per year!

Marketing at its finest, and plenty of ways to make money Less CO2 will become the new LOW fat diet of the future, Mankind is FAT and OVERWEIGHT­/... its simple as it gets

[beb]

I don't understand why we are even debating anything these days.

Obama won and so they should just pass what he wants because majority rules. There isn't any reason to debate this global climate change or bank bailouts or the stimulus package or any of this crap. The consensus says that we picked Obama for president.

The time for debate is over.

[Pharos]

Why don't you learn something about science before posting nonsense. The legal system has nothing to say about the validity of science.

You idea of how long standing theories are constantly revised and re-evaluated is plain bizarre.

Maybe if you gave an example of a revision of a theory, I could comment further on your example's implication for AGW.

[AngieMom57]

Would you be willing to work at the Hanford Nuclear Waste Reservation Site?

[ssfahrer]

What's the salary? Heck, LOTS of people would like the OPPORTUNITY to HAVE A JOB right now!!!! If it's good enough for Homer Simpson, it's good enough for me....

[valkyrie607]

There have been lawsuits. There are lawsuits ongoing.

Most recently, Massachusetts brought a suit against the EPA, saying that the state of MA had suffered adverse effects due to climate change (rising ocean levels, increased storms & floods, etc.), which was caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore the EPA should consider regulating greenhouse gases as part of its Congressional mandate, even though GHGs were not included in the original Clear Air Act. The EPA said no, if Congress wanted it to regulate GHGs they should pass legislation saying so.

Guess what? The EPA lost. Regulations pertaining to GHG emissions from both mobile and non-mobile sources should be forthcoming within the next 4-5 years, if I recall correctly.

Plus, a village in Alaska which is being forced to relocate due to its shoreline being washed away, which is a consequence of the loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, has brought a lawsuit against several oil companies for their part in causing the climate change that reduced the sea ice cover. That is still ongoing.

[miamia]

Why would he be the favorite among conservatives?

He wants governments to spend money on education and health care.

[meinokea]

This man is a genius. Where would we be if he had not invented the internet? He is singlehandidly saving the polar bear and so many others wonderful animals.

[pros54]

Why don't you do something useful with your life? A wasted mind is a painful thing.

[WRBurton]

Mr. Lumbory, unlike Mr. Gore, is an ACTUAL scientist. So, maybe it's not a settled in the scientific community as Gore would have us believe...­.

[aBr1t]

It helps if you read the posts, He agrees with Mr Gore, and furthermore he is a POLITICAL scientist.­..

He agrees about global warming but wants to focus on humaniterian needs of people first then deal with the global warming issue at a later date "i find ironic" because if we wait there wont be anyone to save...

[norkas]

a britt here is you answer

Cleaning the enviorment and using solar and promoting more ego building products will be a MULTI MULTI TRILLION ECONOMIC BOOM GLOBALLY.

Anyone should be able to see this and there is NO use in debating this unless you like to look in the morror and debate yourself.

I am tired of people tring to derail this because we will see a boom like we never seen before and have a cleaner planet.

There are some that want the planet to come to and end along with humanity because of there extreme right religious views the same group would like what we call the final war for mankind. But anyone stable will see what i just said is easy to undersatnd is a fact that does not need to be debated

[Exusian]

Bjorn Lomborg is a political scientist. He has no qualifications what so ever in the physical sciences.

But then neither does Gore.

[DiscernTruth]

Al Gore omitted an inconvenient truth: the significant role that methane gas plays in all this.

Al Gore raises cattle. When confronted about this hypocrisy and why he didn't include this info in his movie, he "didn't want to overload people with too much informatio­n."

There are so many reasons to be vegetarian: compassion, ecological, economical.
Factory farming is a holocaust that few pay attention to.

Watch this disturbing and sometimes funny movie: http://www.themeatrix.com/

[aBr1t]

methane is not as big as a problem as 3billon cars and industry

one thing you must understand about this is the numbers we are talking about are huge,,

The population of the planet is around 6-7 billion people soon to be 8 billion, china alone as 1 billion people

In the next say 50 years the totaly amount of cars on our roads will be about 5 billion or more all "constantly" pumping out C02 at a rate that is INCREASING, this is not normal for the earth its not a cycle its a CONSTANT.. Now with that in mind. think of this

If you are in a garage with no ventalion with the engine running in your car, how long do you think the fumes out the back of the car would infact kill you?

Now equate that into a planet wide scale action.. now do you understand the importance of what i am trying to convay here?

The earth has no way of getting rid of the pollution that cars spew out the tailpipe..­.

we are slowly killing our planet as we shop drive and consume and watch pop idol..

[DiscernTruth]

I would prefer cow farts to car fumes in a closed in garage. But the numbers speak for themselves. Methane is a serious contributor to greenhouse gases.

From our own NOAA: "Increases in the atmospheric abundance of methane and ozone have implications for climate since they are the second and third most important anthropogenic greenhouse gases, respectively, behind carbon dioxide; together they contributed roughly two-thirds as much radiative forcing as carbon dioxide did, from 1750 to 2000 (Figure 2)." http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/2006/spot_methane.html

[aBr1t]

2 links...

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070131_climate_change_history.html

and i didnt even have to post that because what i posted is based on facts and logic in humans with an IQ above gnats....

oh and here is something els..

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6a.html

This is in responce to ssmack Happy reading...

[dsws]

"...in humans with an IQ above gnats...."

No. The science of global warming is settled on many points, but it is not trivial. The basic idea is simple, but weather and climate are complicated. It's not obvious that the effects of anthropogenic CO2 increase are substantial compared to all the other influences and feedbacks involved: it took a lot of work by a lot of scientists to prove that beyond reasonable doubt.

[aBr1t]

agreed, we have moved on alot since way back when but to deny man has no imapct is very sad..

Look at the impact of the population growth of the planet and the movement of humans and the landscape.­.. did that happen naturaly? is our evolution on this planet and what we are doing leading us to the natural demise of the human race?

we can look at it in a phylisophical way as i just did or we can place bets on if or when we understand quasality and equilibriu­m..

We all understand one thing this planet is ours we are the top of the apex and we are the prime factor in how this world will be shaped by us.. and how we do things on it..

Choice is simple stay blind and endup like the dinos "that was natural" or keep going and end up like them through our own greed and lust for acceptance from god and our erational behaviour as a spices that uses money as if it was food...

why do you need money? because you can not understand nore get to grips with nature..

We are infact out of balance with the very ecosystem that sustains mankind.. and as sure as day follows night our armagedon is coming just as the wind blows..

And you can take THAT to the bank..

[ssmack]

A timeline doesn't prove anything..­.. nice try.

[aBr1t]

A timeline? = observation

you do know thats one key importance in understandy theory?

how did galileo find out what he did?

Yes nice try indeed....

[cliffstep]

In all this sturm und drang from those in opposition to the following statement: The planet is currently undergoing climactic changes that will have major , possibly drastic impact on the health and lives of many species of life , including man , I have yet to hear from anyone the response to one simple question.
What , in and of itself , is wrong with taking action that would help return our planet to what we would consider to be an ideal state?
I would appreciate any rational answer to that question.

[dsws]

"What , in and of itself , is wrong with taking action that would help return our planet to what we would consider to be an ideal state?"

It's ill-posed: we don't know what would return our planet to a reasonable approximation of one of its previous states, and what we would consider ideal probably isn't a close approximation to one of the planet's previous states.

I'm in favor of geoengineering, but at this point it's something to study, develop, and evaluate, not something that's ready to be put into practice immediately.

[SonofLiberty1]

Ah...so you think it's ok just to wait.....
Uh Huh...that­'s what I thought.

[terrilian]

Anytime someone says that the debate is over, or the science is done, or "It's not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake," then we are no longer talking about science, but faith.

[rainbowblue]

I agree! I mean how can Al Gore ignore the truth of the matter, it's not CO2 causing Global Warming, it's the decline of Pirates! Only the Flying Spaghetti Monster can save us now.

Or better yet, maybe I should agree with you that the debate is not over and I think the Earth is still flat (the "satellite" pictures are doctored), the Earth is the center of the Universe, and the smog burning fossil fuels creates is actually great for your lungs.

Just because you read George Will doesn't mean you're smart and informed.

[Imrightyourewrong]

Umm....no.­...there are certain scientific tenets which are proven. For which there is no "other side" because science has discovered the truth. Hate to tell you but climate change is one of those. Unless of course you want to debate whether the earth is flat or round...or is my unequivocal belief that it's round just a matter of faith?

[Senseimilla]

"Unless of course you want to debate whether the earth is flat or round...or is my unequivocal belief that it's round just a matter of faith?"

"Unequivocal" believing is faith. It is also the antithesis of true science.

Lrn2Logic.

[Agentlady007]

We aren't living in the time of Thomas Edison or Benjamin Franklin anymore. We know what has to be done, and we need to act upon it. The solar energy and wind from natural resources are our only hope to live well and not spend all our hard earned dollars to warm our homes or cool them down or get from A to B. The only fear is it is too expensive ---and my suggestion is find a way to make it less expensive.

[Pharos]

I would suggest that we don't know what to do. There are consequences to every solution and we need to take action but not label everything as green or not green or good or bad.
We are probably going to have to do some things that have undesirable side effects. We are in a situation where we are too often going to be doing the lesser of two evils. The longer we wait to take action , the more we are going to face unpleasant choices.

[ryancammer]

WRONG. phlogiston doesn't cause fire, bloodletting doesn't cure pneumonia, the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, and irrational numbers do, in fact, exist.

thermodynamics is ALWAYS correct. ALWAYS. there is simply no debate. well, maybe YOU can debate these things, but anybody with any formal scientific training can quickly and effectively discredit you. provided, of course, you understand what you're talking about (which is dubious).

[tedtun]

For all the cynics of global waming, there is this idea that we can continue to to consume and pollute indefinitely. That by virtue of being human we an indiscriminately emit carbons and and act with complete carelessness about global warming. The idea of this is so stunningly ignorant it defies logic. To me it is impossible to believe that our current behavior does not effects the environment. There is a certain fatalistism to this, an idea that we are not responsible for our actions, that somehow everything will be OK because God wouldnt let that happen, or that the true believers will be raptured and who gives a flying fig, because the rest of us will go to hell. history shows that many great civilizations perished because of bad resource management.

[aBr1t]

history shows that many great civilizations perished because of bad resource management.

Relplace MANY with EVERY and then you are closer to the mark =)

Easter island anyone? all that will be left when we are done is the buildings.­.. we as a people will be wiped of this planet due to our own blind selfishnes­s..

[ryancammer]

nuclear weapons are dangerous. there were a couple occasions where nuclear wars were almost started between russia and the united states, over faulty warning sensors. a good nuclear winter would come close to eradicating most, if not all, of the mammalian life on the planet.

now, fast forward a hundred years from now. fusion provides virtually unlimited power, very, very quickly. you better believe that governments will find a way to lob lots of energy at people.

climate could maybe do us in over a millennium, and probably not then. overpopulation and unsustainable population growth will exacerbate wars, and help fuel pandemics. these are bad, but they won't necessarily do the human population in.

however, extremely powerful weapons in the hands of warmongers, maybe thousands, even billions of times more powerful than our current generation of weapons, could do the trick.

in the epoch of human civilization, things are about to get interestin­g...

[Emerald1943]

I wonder how much money the big oil industry has spent to debunk the climate change theory? It is a well-known fact that they did everything they could to cause confusion on the issue.

This is much like politics..­.there will never be an agreement by all. But what if the global warming theory is real? Should we just wait and see what happens when the polar icecaps are gone and our cities are under water?

Big oil has brought us to the brink, environmentally and financially. Our dependence on foreign oil MUST end and we must use all our resources to develop alternativ­es...unles­s we want to continue with this "ostrich head-in-the-sand" attitude!

[osamamania]

"I wonder how much money the big oil industry has spent to debunk climate change theory?"

Less than the 300 million plus that AL Bore has earned lying to you leftist crazies!

[Emerald1943]

Your comment sounds like this is a lot more about your dislike for Al Gore than it is about the climate change question.

And I would bet some $$$ that the oil industry has spent WAY more than $300 million on their propaganda!

[aBr1t]

I am still amazed by the flat worlders..­.

Try to understand something.­. very very important here

(1) Oil is FINITE agree?
(2) You can not Take out something from the earth and pump it into the air without some affect why?
(3) It was once a solid and the only way it became a gas is HUMAN interventi­on...
(4) The natural cycel of the ice age was DUE to a DROP in CO2 Levels... and a Rise in CO2 was due to Volcanic activity,, "both the Cool and the Warming" Proven
(5) The natural pumping into the air of CO2 is not the same as the POLLUTANTS that also come out the back of a CAR/Transp­ort/Indust­ry...

We are Pumping MORE Crap into the AIR than EVERY BEFOR we CONTRIBUTE to the CO2 levels because OUR CIVILISATION IS BASED ON CARBON BASED FULES, from FOOD, To every other prodcut, Plastic is a by product of? "oil"

And as for MARS = Sorry no humans live on mars ... and the sun is NOT at its highest active period, that beings in 2011.

Get a clue

[ssmack]

I don't see anything to back up your claims. You're making some BIG leaps here, that the data just doesn't support.

[aBr1t]

data??

Everything i just told you is FACT and should be logical to anyone with a brain...

Why? because all that i have stated one learns in school.. you know geology, physics, chemisty, astrophysics?

Was you home schooled by any chance??

[SonofLiberty1]

Here's some data for you...

Go to Spaceweather.com

Look at the image of the Sun on the left hand side.
Note the Sunspot number is ZERO.

This shows that we are at SOLAR MINIMUM

Now, if you can pick up a copy of the March 2009 issue of Sky & Telescope
you can read the cover article "Should we blame the SUN for Global Warming?"

Want to know the answer (these are astronomers you know) well it's that the Sun can only be blamed for

20% of the warming.

Don't believe me?

Here's a link to an interview by a Solar Physicist Judith Lean...

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/skytel/beyondthepage/38004069.html

[dsws]

"(3) It was once a solid and the only way it became a gas is HUMAN interventi­on..."

Oil is a liquid and natural gas is a gas. Solid/liquid/gas has nothing to do with it. It's hydrocarbons underground vs carbon dioxide in the air. Some fossil fuel was always coming to the surface naturally, and turning into CO2 in the air, but the amount was negligible.

"(4) The natural cycel of the ice age was DUE to a DROP in CO2 Levels"

Besides changes in CO2 and methane, there are a number of cycles and non-cyclical changes involved: the Milankovitch cycles, the rise of the Himalayas, the closing of the isthmus of Panama, Antarctica being at the south pole, and some others I'm not thinking off offhand. Then of course there's the albedo effect of the ice itself.

[rikkirighteous]

Oil is finite?

You've never heard of the abiotic theory?

http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/

[BrettnCalgary]

Guess what happens when I mention that to the geophysicists and geologists I know. Roaring laughter.

[Exusian]

I have to agree with you, ssmack, Brit seems very confused about some things.

[ssmack]

The case for man-made global climate change continues to unravel. Of course Al Gore won't debate on the subject, he would get schooled. The "case" is riddled with holes, and will eventually be debunked as a hoax.

At the very least, there is sufficient doubt to at least call for an impartial investigation. Gather research from both sides and examine it.

First, the data shows a CO2 increase AFTER a rise in global temperature. This is contrary to the "greenhouse effect" hypothesis.

Second, there have been no increases in the number of, or the severity of storms. Since 1950, the trend is either flat or down (tornadoes, hurricanes).

Third, we haven't warmed since 1998. Now, there is a growing concern that we are not in a warming period, but actually in a cooling period.

Fourth, with all the talk about sea levels rising - when you look at the data, we are actually in a relatively stable period in sea level change. Sea levels were much more volatile thousands of years ago. In the last 128 years, the sea level change has been 7.8 inches. Much more stable than previous periods. Plus, there has been no acceleration in the rate since human generated CO2 became an issue. It's been stable.

31,000+ scientists have already come out against the "junk science" that is used to "prove" human cause climate change. The time has come to get the facts out on both sides of the issue.

http://www.petitionproject.org

[andhakari]

Flat statements and no data. I wouldn't buy any ocean front property in Florida if I were you -- which I'm glad I'm not.

[ssmack]

Click on the link - it's all there.

[Exusian]

The case for man-made global climate change continues to unravel only in your mind.

1) Data does indeed show that CO2 increases after an initial rise in global temperature **at the end of a glacial staid.**
This is not at all contrary to the greenhouse effect hypothesis, but is in fact exactly what the hypothesis predicts:
an initial warming forcing, of any source, will cause a rise in atmospheric CO2, which will then act as an amplifying feedback to the initial forcing by adding still more warmth.

Add more CO2 in the absence of an initial warming forcing, as we are doing today, and CO2 will still add warming, but as a direct forcing instead of as an amplifying feedback. It is this ability of CO2 to act as either a feedback or as a direct forcing, depending on the circumstances, that you fail to grasp.

2) The total number of tropical cyclones world-wide has not increased, but both the number of severe storms and the total amount of storm energy has definitely increased.

[Exusian]

3) Comparing a trend in temperature to a single year is something often done by the statistically naive and those deliberately trying mislead.
By any criteria 1998, with a strong El Nino, was an outlier well above the long term temperature trend, a trend that continued its upward slope until 2005, which in fact eclipsed 1998.

4) The rate of sea level rise did in fact increase in the 1990s, from around 2mm/year to over 3mm/year.

5) The petionproject has been shown to be a deliberate fraud, rife with non-scientists, doctors, dentists, weather announcers, cartoon characters, and dead people, but woefully short of actual scientists qualified to discuss any aspect of climate or climate change.

[SonofLiberty1]

The case for man made global change unravels?

Then I have a question for you...

I guess you do not believe in things like Air Pollution or even Acid Rain?

Why is it that the cases of Asthma are rising?

So, according to you, ssmack, we don't really change our environment right?