Al Gore And Phelim McAleer Spar Over Global Warming: Climate Change Denier Challenges Gore (VIDEO)

On Friday at The Society Of Environmental Journalists conference, Al Gore got caught up in the increasingly common "town hall" moment with independent filmmaker Phelim McAleer. McAleer is making a documentary titled "Not Evil Just Wrong," which will attempt to debunk global warming by labeling such concerns "hysteria." McAleer starts the video stating he's going to ask Gore "tough questions," and during the Q & A starts aggressively questioning Gore about inconsistencies in An Inconvenient Truth and whether he accepts the British High Court's ruling that the film contains errors. McAleer goes on to badger Gore about polar bear statistics until he's asked to stop and then his mike is cut.

Watch how the former vice president reacts and the argument that ensues.

As Curtis Brainard at the Columbia Journalism Review writes about the incident:

Conservative blogs are already trying to cast the event as proof that environmental journalists are nothing but "homers" and treehuggers who won't challenge their sources or report critically on environmental issues. Those assessments are shortsighted and wrong.

Tim Wheeler, the "bouncer" depicted in the video who cut off McAleer, wrote about the incident in a blog on the conference's website.

Later, in the foyer, I spoke to McAleer, wanting to be sure he understood why he'd been cut off. He accused me and SEJ of censoring a journalist, and observed that we were shielding our speaker from tough questions. I responded that he had been free to ask his question and even got a chance to follow it up, but that he didn't have a right to monopolize the Q&A. He said he was simply trying to get Gore to answer his question. I told we gave him a chance to ask it, but we couldn't guarantee an answer to his satisfaction, and with both Gore and him simply repeating themselves, fairness dictated that he yield the mic to others waiting to pose their questions.

Here's a link that debunks McAleer's claims about polar bears.

Comments

[ahren]

04:22 PM on 10/15/2009

I think that even if not a single scientists came out to warn about climate change and pollution destroying the planets biosphere, I would have drawn that conclusion all by myself just from obersation of all the things that are happening - floods, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, forest fires, droughts, desertifications, melting North Pole and ice caps, increased acidity in air, bodies of waters and the oceans.....

CO2 is what comes out of your cars tail-pipe. And if you reroute the emission of your tailpipe into your car and closed the windows - quess what happens to you?

Only idiots would think that over a century of releasing these toxic fumes into our atmosphere causes no harm - scientists or no scientists.

On a more personal level - I now that the composition of the air that I'm used to breathing has changed and become more toxic....it is like the taste of one's favorite wine that has turned slightly....most people won't know the difference. But for those who can feel and taste such slight changes - there is no question.

[Calinative]

03:50 PM on 10/16/2009

First off, tsunamis, earthquakes, droughts, forest fires, and tornados all happened before people came along.

"CO2 is what comes out of your cars tail-pipe. And if you reroute the emission of your tailpipe into your car and closed the windows - quess what happens to you?"

Actually carbon monoxide (CO not CO2) is what would kill you from your car's tailpipe. Completely different molecule.

It's not rocket science.

[ahren]

04:17 PM on 10/16/2009

"CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.[2] Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour" (source: wikipedia)

Take out the CO...and just sit in the car with the CO2, the experiment's never been tried. What do you think the results will be?

And all the things I've mentioned, floods, tsunamis etc...have all existed - but not at his frequency.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist.

[Calinative]

04:23 PM on 10/16/2009

We're only at 380 ppm. Let me know when you feel drowsy.

[texfly]

01:58 PM on 10/15/2009

All you Bob Carter fans and maybe even Bob Carter, himself, please answer one simple question:

What causes the leading edge of a Milankovitch cycle to be steeper than the trailing edge?

1) Refer to tthe 400.000 yrs BCE in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

2) Include as much detail in your answer as HuffPo allows (500 words)

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

07:34 PM on 10/15/2009

nice point

[Calinative]

08:20 PM on 10/15/2009

Nobody is going to write you a 500 word essay professor smug. But obviously your theory involves a positive feedback mechanism of CO2. That is the one scenario you still can't prove.

But if I had to guess, I'd say the earth absorbs heat in the atmosphere and surface of the earth, then takes a while to reach the deep ocean and then takes longer to dissipate.

Why does it take 30 minutes to bake a pie, and 45 minutes to cool down?

[texfly]

09:47 PM on 10/15/2009

No GUESSES without some science are allowed Cal. Try again,

[Kamenskiy]

04:06 AM on 10/15/2009

Now I've got a new idea, which Republicans should be very happy about: we should actually PROMOTE global warming, by burning as much coal as possible. Why? Well, one of the concerns about global warming is that it will cause sea levels to rise, drowning coastal land. But that's what happens if we have A LITTLE global warming.

If we actually burn off most of the coal on Earth, we will end up with enough CO2 in the atmosphere that the oceans will begin to evaporate from the heat. This will reverse the loss of coastal land seen in the early stages of global warming. If we warm up some more, increasing water vapor in the atmosphere will begin to cause further heating (water vapor is also a greenhouse gas) until the oceans boil off completely. Think of all the natural resources on the ocean floor that will be uncovered by this, ready to be exploited!

[sonofsamphm1c]

02:21 AM on 10/15/2009

The CO2 lag is solidly explained by science. The mechanisms are easily understood.

[realpolitic]

07:44 AM on 10/15/2009

It would be unusual if there were not a lag.

[sonofsamphm1c]

11:52 AM on 10/15/2009

Obviously. Unless, of course, a person is a dunce and cannot understand things, even when obvious,

[shockmagog]

12:32 AM on 10/15/2009

Wow, a contrarian's dream. The denialists finally get a "debate" with their favorite AGW straw man, Al Gore.

No great surprise--much like their faith-based wish for global cooling, their argument falls short.

[realpolitic]

12:41 AM on 10/15/2009

Good point!!!

[realpolitic]

11:29 PM on 10/14/2009

The Judge in the British case regarding the Gore film said...

"It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme."


"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:

(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");

(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");

(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and

(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects.

The judge concluded...

"These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists."

What could be a better advocacy than the British court's ruling about the film An Inconvenient Truth and the science of climate change itself! Besides, the British dress well!

[Exusian]

11:49 PM on 10/14/2009

Yeah, science denialists conveniently neglect to quote that part of the ruling, but then they never hesitate to cherry pick just about any straw, no matter how flimsy or irrelevant, to support their denial.

[realpolitic]

12:19 AM on 10/15/2009

Yes, you linked to it below and then I borrowed from your link. Thanks! I like to rile up the deniers!

[DocSkull]

07:45 AM on 10/15/2009

They mostly stick to bears and hurricanes, they fuzzy edges of global warming's effects.

[realpolitic]

11:23 PM on 10/14/2009

We should teach An Inconvenient Truth in our schools as well. It would help school children take a greater interest in science.

When released the English Department of Education issued a news release that said...

"The powerful Al Gore film "An Inconvenient Truth" will form part of a pack on climate change sent to every secondary school in England, Environment Secretary David Milliband and Education Secretary Alan Johnson announced today. The film documents former US Vice President Al Gore's personal mission to highlight the issues surrounding global warming and inspire actions to prevent it."

[texfly]

11:29 PM on 10/14/2009

I'd rather see real scientists teaching science. Like hiring our retired ones. Science is very popular among kids, but then they hit high school and are stymied by a lack of mathematical rigor and sound critical thinking skills.

[realpolitic]

12:18 AM on 10/15/2009

If science is taught right then kids are naturally fascinated by it. In fact, it takes bad teachers or incurious parents to turn kids off to science. Also, as a culture we are not very pro-science!

[Calinative]

12:08 AM on 10/15/2009

They already teach that stuff to kids. Except they have to lie to them. They reverse the temperature and CO2 graphs to make it look like CO2 comes first. Otherwise they would know it's all a bunch of crap.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/13/will-media-report-error-laurie-davids-global-warming-children-s-book

[realpolitic]

12:20 AM on 10/15/2009

Yes, newsbusters is a good source of information. Why don't you try the National Enquirer? Has Newsbusters proven Obama was born in Kenya yet?

[DocSkull]

07:37 AM on 10/15/2009

I don't think the graph is mislabeled. It looks fine to me and even shows the lag. I believe this is a false claim.

[Dennim]

09:02 PM on 10/14/2009

Also, we can also buy smaller homes. The added savings are amazing plus you have less to clean! We questioned whether we could pull it off but did and found that having 1/3 the space we thought we needed has been nothing but positive - from both a financial and environmental point of view.

[Dennim]

09:01 PM on 10/14/2009

There is so much we can do as citizens of the globe that will affect positive change. The issue of Climate Change should not divide nor devolve into a political argument. If you don't believe in climate change - how about saving money across the board?

Solar panels are expensive, but solar tubing is affordable and great for hallways, bathrooms and utility/laundry rooms. Save on electricity plus the sun is free (works even in rainy Oregon). Bamboo flooring can be expensive; yet cork is another, less expensive, viable option and sustainable.

CFL bulbs that cost a bit extra when purchased will save on energy costs and last forever. (I have one that has been used for over seven years.) The Home Depot now collects these bulbs and also recycles all used portable rechargeable batteries for you.

We can recycle our phones, computers, etc., or donate old cell phones to senior centers and computers and peripherals to schools. Our local library had to cut hours etc., as have most communities due to funding cuts so remember those books, movies etc., that have been gathering dust. The library was happy to receive the books, movies and music.

There are many things we can do even if one questions the validity of climate change. We can still save on energy costs, provide work for others by recycling and by donating our used electronics to those in need. Who knows you may be entitled to a tax write-off.

[fortysixandtwo]

07:01 PM on 10/14/2009

I wonder if some of the abnormal "cloud" cover has any play.
Some mornings, the sky is a sparkling blue. As the day passes, the contrails dont evaporate.
They remain and expand across the sky until all one can see is a sky wide hazy muck.
I first noticed this in 2003, and in some places like in Oregon it occurs for weeks on end.
Anyone have an explanation why the contrails on some days no longer evaporate?

[DocSkull]

07:44 PM on 10/14/2009

The human contribution to cloud cover is part of the equation, but a small one since atmospheric water precipitates.

[Ventoi]

06:30 PM on 10/14/2009

3/3. what if all of the oxygen stealing...carbon dioxide emitting (producing) spirits...
whose spiritual presence were making it warmer...
a bit warmer every year...
with their invisible breathing (there didn't have to be an invisible sun, Sting...)

just walked into some of the wildfires...
and left...

hopefully they weren't keeping the ice age away...
or we'll really need the death councils.


(I've never wanted anything...so bad)

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

06:31 PM on 10/14/2009

woah- I cant wait to see what 2/3 and 1/3 have to say.

[RomeoMD25]

05:04 PM on 10/14/2009

oil companies should love the rhetoric of global warming. They would be watching with glee.
If the public is conditioned to believe in alternatives such as wind at $200 per barrel of oil equivalent or solar at $1,000,
if taxes are supposed to force conservation while the public uses more and more energy, guess what gift is handed to those that manage oil and gas.

Even according to NYT
Exxon funding,writing the current Climate Bill

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/06/26/26greenwire-lobbying-cash-paved-climate-bills-road-to-hous-97436.html

[texfly]

05:50 PM on 10/14/2009

Romeo - try 5 ¢/kWh for both wind an solar. Guess what? Electrons power cars and trains very well - cheaper than gasoline and diesel. They also heat and cool too.

[Exusian]

04:44 PM on 10/14/2009

...continued 4

How does this relate to the warming of the last century?

Skip the fist step, the initial warming provided by the increase in insolation because there is no such increase today, and go directly to the third step: increase CO2 in the atmosphere, which is what humans are doing by burning fossil carbon fuels.

And just as it does at the end of a glaciation, the current increase in atmospheric CO2 is warming Earth's surface and atmosphere.

And just as it did then, it will also amplify the other feedback mechanisms by melting ice sheets and glaciers, thus changing Earth's albedo, and by causing higher levels of methane and water vapour in the atmosphere.

Until the initial forcing--this time adding CO2 directly to the atmosphere by burning fossil carbon fuels--diminishes or ends and there is nothing left to amplify.

[DocSkull]

04:50 PM on 10/14/2009

That is an excellent explanation!

[fumes]

04:54 PM on 10/14/2009

bull twinklies..

he's describing a runaway scenerio..

and that's not happening!

[DocSkull]

04:57 PM on 10/14/2009

A runaway scenario, as in a short time span? He doesn't put a time frame on it.

[rbtboss]

06:18 PM on 10/14/2009

Excellent. Now the way you explain it, when the burning of carbon ends, the warming ends. But I keep hearing that there is a point of no return that we are approaching.

[Exusian]

08:26 PM on 10/14/2009

No, the warming will not end for a long time after the burning stops.

1) The amplifying feedbacks take a long time to run down to 0, especially the warming of the ocean, which has tremendous thermal mass. It has not only absorbed around half of all the fossil carbon CO2 we have already emitted into the atmosphere, it has also absorbed a large portion of the warming that the other half has already induced, and it will continue to do so for a long time into the future. If we stopped burning fossil carbon today the ocean would continue to warm due to the carbon we've already burned.

2) The carbon we've already burned will stay in the atmosphere for a long, long time, because we have not just added it to the atmosphere, we've added it to the active carbon cycle. Since carbon cycles continuously between the atmosphere, the ocean and the biosphere and is permanently removed from the active carbon cycle very, very slowly through sedimentation of carbonate shelled marine organisms and the weathering of silicate rocks, atmospheric carbon dioxide will remain at higher than pre-industrial levels for many centuries, perhaps more than a thousand years, meaning global surface temperatures will remain at higher than pre-industrial levels for a long time to come as well.

continued...

[Exusian]

08:27 PM on 10/14/2009

...continued

The only way to *end* the warming earlier is to 1) reduce the amount of energy reaching Earth's surface -- namely sunlight, which is what those favouring geoengineering aim to do, but that fails to address the other serious problem with highr CO2: ocean acidification, or 2) stop adding ever more fossil carbon CO2 and find a way to draw down atmospheric CO2 more rapidly than the natural but very slow slow geologic processes.

[Exusian]

04:43 PM on 10/14/2009

...continued 3

Keep in mind that each of these feedbacks in turn amplifies each other. More absorbed sunlight means more CO2, CH4 and H2O, which means still less ice, which means still more CO2, CH4 and H2O, and so on, until the initial forcing diminishes or ends and there is nothing left to amplify.

We can calculate how much warming the increase in sunshine added, and it is simply not enough to end the glaciation. Besides, the increase in sunshine peaked ~12,000 year ago, before the glaciers were entirely gone, and insolation has been dropping ever since.

We can also calculate the increase in the amount of sunlight absorbed as the ice sheet shrank, and it still isn't enough.

Only when we add in the amplifying greenhouse warming caused by the increase in CO2, CH4 and H2O in the atmosphere was there enough added warming to do the job.

So, to sum up, the 800 year lag proves that CO2 does not initiate the end of an ice age. However, the *magnitude* of the warming proves that the increase in CO2 (and methane and water vapour) DO add enough warming.

continued...

[Ventoi]

05:54 PM on 10/14/2009

Coming at you 'from the other side' there for a minute...

God and spirits and all...coming with me...

-so what you're saying...or not intending to say, perhaps...but saying, nonetheless...

is that if God sent spirits to earth..

he might be able to end an ice age...

if they breathed in oxygen and breathed out carbon dioxide CO2..in spirit form?

[Exusian]

04:41 PM on 10/14/2009

...continued 2

This increase in summer sunshine began to melt the glaciers that covered much of North America and Northern Europe. As the ice sheet receded and grew smaller it reflected less sunlight back into space (this is called albedo), making Earth's surface warm a little bit more.
This is called an amplifying feedback, because it adds to, or amplifies the initial warming.

The increase in sunlight also began to slowly warm the northern ocean and newly exposed permafrost. As the ocean warmed it could hold less dissolved CO2, so it began to emit CO2 into the atmosphere. And as the permafrost melted, previously frozen organic material began to rot, emitting both CO2 and methane (CH4) into the atmosphere. We know that both CO2 and methane are greenhouse gasses, meaning they absorb outgoing infrared light emitted by Earth's surface and direct some of that energy back down towards the surface and thus warm the atmosphere, so as their levels in the atmosphere began to rise both added still more warming.
This was another amplifying feedback.

Finally, as the increase in sunlight, the increase in sunlight actually absorbed by Earth's surface, and the increase in CO2 and methane warmed Earth's atmosphere, that warmer atmosphere could hold more water vapour. We know that water vapour is also a greenhouse gas, so the additional H2O added still more warming.
Yet another amplifying feedback.

continued...