9 1 min 15 yrs

This is a brilliant stand-up routine which makes a few acerbic points….!

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

9 thoughts on “THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AL GORE AND PAT ROBERTSON..

  1. Laban at UK Commentators has a post about an article in the Independent that’s telling us we’re all going to freeze. Maybe those sunspots were having an effect after all. In the post he links to a report by someone called Harry Eager that is well worth reading.

    ‘He was one of the advisers on a panel of the latest report (IPCC-4) who requested that the report take account of solar variance. The panel was controlled by two men, Kuhn said, who were committed to the view that carbon dioxide is the important component of temperature change, and IPCC-4 leaves out solar components.

    “Does carbon dioxide explain temperature change?” Kuhn said. He said the short answer is no.

    Glaciers are in retreat, and this is often cited (for example, by former Vice President Al Gore in “An Inconvenient Truth”) as evidence for the impact of carbon on climate.

    Kuhn, however, has a pair of graphs that bring that theory into question. One shows when the glaciers began melting, and the other when the carbon dioxide began rising.

    The melting began at least 80 years before the carbon buildup.

    “It’s not caused by the carbon dioxide,” said Kuhn.

    And.

    Kuhn said a study of sea level changes reaches the same conclusion, that climate changes observed now are part of a long-term cycle in the relationship between sun and Earth. The models relied upon by the IPCC “should not be used to predict future climate changes,” he said.

    “To change our economy on that basis would be wrong.”

    http://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/search/label/climate

  2. Another piece of IPCC chicanery to reflect on courtesy of Devils Kitchen.
    d them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow—I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!

    That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don’t find it!

    http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2007/12/skewing-data-lying.html#links

  3. The melting began at least 80 years before the carbon buildup.

    Even if this is true (facts? evidence? links?), the flaw in the logic should be obvious to anyone other than a blinkered denialist. The point about greenhouse gases is that they are a forcing agent which means they amplify any other warming trend that may be at work and offset any cooling trend, eg. from sunspot activity cycles.

  4. Forget about the why’s and the where’fors of the argument, this Billy Connolly-style humour with the shrill, incredulous voice, is very funny and entertaining.
    The very last punchline gag: if we can’t adapt in 100 years…"come-on!"…’; was the perfect clincher I think.

  5. I thought it was a load of dross, not particularly funny and very ill-informed about the AGW theory. To compare the science of AGW with the demented sky-god rantings of Pat Robertson is ridiculous.

    Typical denialist crap in fact.

Comments are closed.