Originally Posted by owedtojoy

This is not a thread about Al Gore.

Somebody had better tell Al Gore that. He IS Mr. Climate Change for some.
Some select sentences from the New Scientist's analysis.
CultureLab: Al Gore's underwhelming 24 hours

It was cringe-worthy, quite dull, and sadly not very compelling...It was an excruciating few minutes while the London moderators tried to keep the audience of about 100 in the small LSE auditorium busy with impromptu stand-up. We would hear a telephone ring, they said, and it would be Al.

Videos of republican US congressmen and anchormen from Fox News making entertaining statements about climate change pepper the segment on sceptics arguments. Each one, we are told, is a red herring (cue animated .gif of a red fish). Animated .gifs of large red fish are repeatedly contrasted with the word REALITY, writ large on a black background.

I'll spare you the rest - highlights from each city can be viewed online if you're curious. But the trouble is: it's dull. It's all been done and seen before, often better. (Dare I mention: if you want to see detailed explanations of classic sceptical arguments, see our own Climate Myths.)

But I'm still left with the overwhelming feeling that Gore's time is over. As Mike Shanahan of the International Institute for Environment and Development puts it: "climate change needs a Gandhi or a Martin Luther King or a Mandela, and Al Gore is none of those".

The high priest of climate change failed to make many converts.

Originally Posted by liamfoley

Somebody had better tell Al Gore that. He IS Mr. Climate Change for some.

Al Gore has been a prominent advocate for solutions to climate change, and his educational work has been invaluable. In terms of practical legislative measures, US Republicans like Arnold Schwartzenegger and George Schultz have achieved a lot more.

Some select sentences from the New Scientist's analysis.
CultureLab: Al Gore's underwhelming 24 hours

The high priest of climate change failed to make many converts.

I know of nobody, except you, who thinks there is a "high priest" of climate change. New Scientist is premature in its evaluation of the 24 hours. The best of the videos and discussions are still circulating.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

SirCharles has already effectively demolished Stevenson's article,and if you bother to check the internet yourself, you would find his points have long been debunked. Further comment is superfluous.

Ms Rebel obviously can only read stuff at the LaRouche website. She seems to be blind for anything else.

[QUOTE=SirCharles;4355010]Ms Rebel obviously can only read stuff at the LaRouche website. She seems to be blind for anything [Quote]

The only thing worse than being blind is to have no vision--- Helen Keller

This mega-thread needs a bit of something to add to the length. Maybe work in a Catholic Church paedo angle into it somewhere.

Originally Posted by rebellin

The only thing worse than being blind is to have no vision--- Helen Keller

Another climate change denier who lacks a sense of irony!

The USA is only a small part of the earth's surface, but it collects the most interesting statistics on weather and climate.

From the graphic, the Texas Drought in now the costliest weather event in US history - greater than Hurricane Katrina. The year was also phenomenal for floods and tornadoes. Original here Denver Weather Blog | Brendan's Weather

John Nielsen-Gammon, the Texas State Climatologist, reports a high probability (75%) of La Nina conditions this winter, meaning the drought will possibly persist into next year.

• According to the latest US Drought Monitor, only 0.83% of Texas is in moderate drought.
• Next the moderately good news: only 2.42% of Texas is in severe drought.
• Not so good news: 8.88% of Texas is in extreme drought.
• Bad news: that leaves fully 87.83% of Texas in exceptional drought, the worst drought category.

Texas Drought: Good News and Bad News | Climate Abyss | a Chron.com blog

Originally Posted by SirCharles

Ms Rebel obviously can only read stuff at the LaRouche website. She seems to be blind for anything else.

More accurately, you can't "debunk" anything with a Hokey Schtick - as you attempted to do. Once that even makes an appearance, readers justifiably disregard your post and move on.

It is the climate equivalent to Godwin's.

Capital Climate report on the continuing prevalence of hot records over cold in the USA. The upward trend is continuing from the noughties into the 2011s.

http://capitalclimate.blogspot.com/2...hing-cold.html

Originally Posted by GreenIsGood

Anyone else becoming concerned by the slowdown in global warming? The trend had been intact for nearly 30 years. Why is it happening now? Is it a cause for alarm?

Trenberth, Fasullo and Abraham reckon 20 years is needed to distinguish a global warming signal from background natural variation.

"deviations between trends in global mean surface temperature and TOA radiation on decadal timescales can be considerable, and associated uncertainty surrounds the observational record. The recent work suggests that 20 years or longer is needed to begin to resolve a significant global warming signal in the context of natural variations."

Trenberth, Fasullo, and Abraham Respond to Spencer and Braswell