An Inconvenient Truth

[DOMS]

I never get angry from it, but other people tend to. It completely ruins the discussion and doesn't allow them to make any more points because they're blinded by emotion. That's why I'm glad I'm discussing it with DOMS this time. He's not like that. But I still think there's some degree of misunderstanding between us somewhere. The Internets (had to) is certainly not a perfect means of communication (although it's extremely convenient).

Uhhhhhh...

 

[ZECH]

The sun will eventually burn out and the earth will get cooler!

 

[DOMS]

And the good news is that it will take the global-warming-chicken-littles with it!

 

[Squaggleboggin]

None of your statements are actual arguments. I will explain why for each of them.

So? We get more category 5 hurricanes. Big deal. It was that Katrina was a category 5 that caused so much damage; it was piss-poor planning by government officials. Trying to connect the damage from Katrina to global waring is fear mongering at best, lying at worst.

More category 5 hurricanes isn't a big deal? Well that's interesting. You're right - stronger storms don't cause more damage or deaths. In fact, why warn of them at all? Who cares if it's a thunderstorm or a hurricane? It's all the same...

Warmer water equates to stronger storms. Stronger storms equate to more damage. Very simple and in no way misleading. Sure, in a specific example like Katrina the main cause of damage could've been something else. The fact of the first two statements is unchanged by this, and the planning of others has nothing to do with global warming; Katrina's strength had everything to do with temperature, which is inextricably related to global warming whether you'd like it to be or not. You're turning this into something much more political than it needs to be. Whether someone planned poorly or not, less damage would have been done with cooler waters and a less violent storm. Other factors certainly contributed, but don't null this one.

By the way, Gore didn't use global warming to explain the damage caused. Watch the movie again. He's using it as a comparison: If 100,000 displaced people went through such chaos, what will 100,000,000 displaced people cause? That's the point he's making. He simply emphasizes that Katrina picked up power by going through warmer water, which he's saying is caused by global warming.

You're still not getting it.

Okay, by my estimation of the last two hour's temperatures, it's the coldest it's ever been and were doomed to an ice age. Is that the truth? Is it the truth that 2004 was one of the warmest years ever?

I'd love to see you defend this.

Again, you're way off.

You're using 2 hours to predict the rest of time.

Gore is using 650,000 years to predict the next few decades. Please explain how this is not enough data.

Whether it really is the warmest it's ever been is incredibly insignicant. You're not seeing what's important. No matter whether it's been warmer before, we know what the consequences will be with continued warming: Worldwide rises in sea level. Whether the earth has been warmer before has absolutely zero bearing on whether the sea will rise or the ocean currents will change or the world's ecological systems will be thrown out of synch. The argument is null and void and doesn't pertain whatsoever to this case, sorry.

Sure we can use that data to project where things are going, but unless you take in a sample big enough (which Gore isn't doing), you won't know what it means.

Again, I fail to see how 650,000 years of data is insufficient to project a few decades. You're avoiding answering this. You seem to think that he's got the next million years planned out. He's pointing out a trend. It's incredibly foolish to let it go uninvestigated just because it might be a 'fad.'

Oh, Lordy! Look what man has done! The Earth has never been this warm!

The conclusion would be wrong.

You're right, it could be wrong. But once again, it has absolutely no bearing on the following facts:

-CO2 reflects heat back to the earth
-More CO2 therefore reflects more heat back to the earth
-Man is increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere
-Man is therefore increasing the temperature
-If this continues, many problems could occur, including rising worldwide sea levels

None of these can be disputed to my knowledge.

Whether the earth was warmer before, once again, has zero bearing on the facts. You can't get around them. You can insist that the other data is important (and I'm not saying it isn't) all you want, but the facts remain as they are, and the consequences are sure as day. You simply can't deny them.

An additional point: One of Gore's "goals" is to stop the receding of the polar ice caps. But, like I've said before, that started over 10,000 years ago. Yet he never, ever, mentions this. He doesn't because then he, and the global warming chicken littles, could run around crying about how mankind is melting the polar ice caps.

This is just one of the many lies by omission that he does. He is trying to manipulate and cannot be trusted.

And that's fantastic that he wants to eliminate it. It's not going to happen.

You keep bringing up arguments that do not pertain to global warming. The prerogative of Al Gore causes no changes in the facts he presents and the science behind them, sorry. Whether he's a conservative or a hippie, the facts above stand. I could care less what he thinks about it - it's the valid information presented that should take precedence.

 

[DOMS]

More category 5 hurricanes isn't a big deal?

When did I say this? Show me the words that I used to make this point? You can't because I didn't. I said that what happened to New Orleans was caused by the negligence of politicians and not Katrina, even if it was a class 5 hurricane. If the politicians had bothered to take care of the dike problem (which they were warned about previously on numerous occasions), then only a fraction of the damage would have been done.

By the way, Gore didn't use global warming to explain the damage caused. Watch the movie again.

Again, you didn't really read what I actually wrote. I said that he implied it. That's the nifty thing about implying, you only have to hint at it and not actually say it. He was talking about global warming and brought up Katrina as an example. That wasn't an example of a typical hurricane. That was an example of typical politicians.

Again, you're way off.

Gore is using 650,000 years to predict the next few decades. Please explain how this is not enough data.

Again, try to read what I actually wrote. I said that the conclusions he's reaching are faulty. He saying that the Earth's rise in average temperature can only be the fault of man because the Earth has never been this hot before. Which is false. The Earth has been much hotter than it is now on several occasions.

Whether it really is the warmest it's ever been is incredibly insignicant. You're not seeing what's important. No matter whether it's been warmer before, we know what the consequences will be with continued warming: Worldwide rises in sea level. Whether the earth has been warmer before has absolutely zero bearing on whether the sea will rise or the ocean currents will change or the world's ecological systems will be thrown out of synch. The argument is null and void and doesn't pertain whatsoever to this case, sorry.

Perhaps it's null and void if you, like Gore, want to ignore the obvious: It's going to get warmer no matter what humans do. You're trying to attribute the warming to mankind, which hasn't been proven yet. Gore has never stated that the warming is going to continue no matter what we do, because it doesn't fit into his false world view. Which is what you're doing. Once again, it's facts mixed with deception.

His goal, and the goal of those that share his false view, are to stop global warming. It's not to slow down, curtail, or alter global warming; it's to stop it. Which is the sort of unachievable goal that would be expected when using false data.

Again, I fail to see how 650,000 years of data is insufficient to project a few decades. You're avoiding answering this. You seem to think that he's got the next million years planned out. He's pointing out a trend. It's incredibly foolish to let it go uninvestigated just because it might be a 'fad.'

Once again, you're fabricating words. I didn't say that is shouldn't be investigated, I said that which isn't proven shouldn't be spouted out as if it were fact, because, if nothing else, it makes the speaker look foolish. It's even worse if the not-so factual "facts" comes from a politician, because we'll end up wasting money on a non-nonsensical goal.

You're right, it could be wrong. But once again, it has absolutely no bearing on the following facts

Then were is the corresponding astronomical rise in temperatures that match the astronomical rise is CO2? Even among the global warming chicken littles the temperatures are excepted to rise no more (be possibly less than) 5.8 degrees from 1990 to 2100. This would non be congruent with Gore's graph. The graph has very steady correlation for the last 650,000; that is, right up until the right edge. So either the temperature should still maintain that correlation or the conclusion of a CO2 content to ambient temperature, much like your argument, is flawed.

 

[Squaggleboggin]

When did I say this? Show me the words that I used to make this point? You can't because I didn't. I said that what happened to New Orleans was caused by the negligence of politicians and not Katrina, even if it was a class 5 hurricane. If the politicians had bothered to take care of the dike problem (which they were warned about previously on numerous occasions), then only a fraction of the damage would have been done.

I was referring to this statement.

So? We get more category 5 hurricanes. Big deal.

If you meant something else, that's fine. Simply a misunderstanding. But it's no wonder I formed that conclusion from your words.

Again, you didn't really read what I actually wrote. I said that he implied it. That's the nifty thing about implying, you only have to hint at it and not actually say it. He was talking about global warming and brought up Katrina as an example. That wasn't an example of a typical hurricane. That was an example of typical politicians.

The not-so-nifty thing about implications is that someone can infer something that wasn't implied. That was supposed to serve as an example of a typical hurricane turned not-so-typical due to warmer waters, which, again, were caused, allegedly, by global warming. And don't assume that I think you inferred something that wasn't implied. I don't know if he meant to imply it and neither do you, unless you know him personally or heard it from some reliable source.

Again, try to read what I actually wrote. I said that the conclusions he's reaching are faulty. He saying that the Earth's rise in average temperature can only be the fault of man because the Earth has never been this hot before. Which is false. The Earth has been much hotter than it is now on several occasions.

So you can argue something was implied, but I can't. Interesting.

Explain how the previous temperature of the earth will affect the fact that continued increases in temperatures at this rate will lead to catastrophic consequences. They don't, and never will.

Begin comparison.
I broke my leg once by applying too much pressure to it. However, the doctors lost my medical records, which stated the exact amount of pressure I applied to my leg in order to break it. Today, I decided to keep adding one pound of pressure to my leg each minute. But since I have no record of how much pressure was initially on my leg, there can't be any consequences of adding pressure today.

The earth has been so warm that no life could live on it. However, the scientists who study it don't have exact records for those times, which would have stated the exact temperature of the earth. Now, the temperature of the earth is rising. But since we don't know how hot the earth was before, there can't be any consequences of the rising temperature today.
End comparison.

This is how I've been thinking of your views. I know it's completely wrong, so please give me a good comparison that will make obvious what you're really thinking.

Unless you're saying that the consequences of the rise in temperature are synonymous with the conclusions he's reaching (which I'm thinking of as two very separate things: rising seas versus the hottest it's ever been), it again has nothing to do with whether the earth is indeed becoming dangerously warm right now.

Perhaps it's null and void if you, like Gore, want to ignore the obvious: It's going to get warmer no matter what humans do. You're trying to attribute the warming to mankind, which hasn't been proven yet. Gore has never stated that the warming is going to continue no matter what we do, because it doesn't fit into his false world view. Which is what you're doing. Once again, it's facts mixed with deception.

Whoa. I never said that mankind was responsible for all the warming. If I did say that, please quote it so I can correct it. I didn't pay enough attention to the movie to comment on whether Gore did. What I'm saying is that we are speeding it up for a fact. Slowing it down might be a good idea. I'm not saying that no warming would occur without mankind, nor am I saying there are no other factors, which you seemed to have presumed from the beginning. There was no intended deception on my part.

His goal, and the goal of those that share his false view, are to stop global warming. It's not to slow down, curtail, or alter global warming; it's to stop it. Which is the sort of unachievable goal that would be expected when using false data.

That's great. What does that have to do with my argument that global warming is occuring right now? My problem is that you seem to vehemently deny global warming as a fact, not deny that it can be stopped. I agree - due to the laws of thermodynamics, the temparature on earth is going to increase. But why help it get there faster?

Please, if that's not what you're arguing, help me understand exactly what it is you are arguing.

Read carefully. Where did I say that you wanted it to go uninvestigated? Please point it out. I just said I don't think it should be uninvestigated; I didn't comment on your thoughts whatsoever. I'm not the one fabricating anything.

The only things I labeled as fact, really are facts. If you disagree about the validity of the following facts, please comment (copied and pasted from where the facts were labeled as such):

-CO2 reflects heat back to the earth
-More CO2 therefore reflects more heat back to the earth
-Man is increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere
-Man is therefore increasing the temperature
-If this continues, many problems could occur, including rising worldwide sea levels

Then were is the corresponding astronomical rise in temperatures that match the astronomical rise is CO2? Even among the global warming chicken littles the temperatures are excepted to rise no more (be possibly less than) 5.8 degrees from 1990 to 2100. This would non be congruent with Gore's graph. The graph has very steady correlation for the last 650,000; that is, right up until the right edge. So either the temperature should still maintain that correlation or the conclusion of a CO2 content to ambient temperature, much like your argument, is flawed.

Like I said before, the astronomical accompanying rise in temperature simply isn't there. I don't know why, either. My theory of the pot of water being heated explains one possible reason.

CO2 in the environment does reflect heat back onto the earth. If you could explain to me how CO2 does not contribute to increased temperature, that would be great. In fact, that would mean the greenhouse effect isn't real, either, and I could write to NASA and all major scientific journals and magazines (with your help of course).

A little chemistry for thought: Water has a very high specific heat, meaning it takes a relatively large amount of heat to raise the temperature of a given amount of water. About 70% of the earth is covered in water. It's going to take a lot of energy to raise that temperature. If the CO2 levels have risen very quickly in the last couple years, one can't possibly expect the temperature of all that water to increase as quickly. Again, the heated pot theory comes into play.

The correlation is obviously there; however, that doesn't mean one affects the other instantaneously. There is a correlation between lung cancer and smoking. Are you suggesting that someone who smokes must, therefore, immediately get lung cancer? Of course not. Once again, correlations can take time. Not everything is immediate. It takes years to get cancer from its cause, so do you expect the entire planet to change immediately? I hope not.

I'm sure my argument is flawed. Saying it's not would be a little cocky, don't you think? I mean I'm basing most of this off my own thoughts and a movie that was about 90 minutes long. What do you expect?

In fact, here is a question I have for those who support global warming:

-Since CO2 reflects more heat back to earth, wouldn't it reflect more away from it as well?

As I said a while ago, just because I defend something doesn't mean I think it's true. However, I do think global warming is occuring (and you seem to agree). But I think that mankind has played a significant role in its speed and that we can, therefore, slow it down a great deal as well (maybe even back to its natural level, or close to it).

 

[DOMS]

I was referring to this statement.

You took that out of context. In was imbeded in the point that it wasn't the the damage wasn't mainlin due to the fact that Katrina was a class 5 hurricane.

When you start taking things out of context, the argument ends. Don't do it again.

The not-so-nifty thing about implications is that someone can infer something that wasn't implied.

For the last time, he implied that Katrina is what everyone can expect from global warming. Which is a lie. The primary cause of damage in that incident wasn't the power of Katrina but poor planning on the part of government officials.

Explain how the previous temperature of the earth will affect the fact that continued increases in temperatures at this rate will lead to catastrophic consequences. They don't, and never will.

Okay, since you still wont get it, here it is in bolded glory:

It's not about what will happen, it's about drawing the wrong conclusions as a result of using too small a subset of data. Trying to attain goal based on faulty data leads to wasted money and can actually be detrimental.

This is how I've been thinking of your views. I know it's completely wrong, so please give me a good comparison that will make obvious what you're really thinking.

I don't need a comparison. If the above wasn't clear, here's a bulleted list:

• Gore is using too small a subset of data. He's ignoring the true range of temperatures.
• The Earth is going to warm up with or without humans.
• The idea that humans are having a significant affect on the Earth's temperature is NOT a fact.
• He, and others, and basing goals and decisions on incomplete, and simply false, data.
• Pursing baseless goals leads to a waste of money and resources.

Add to this the pure garbage that people like him want to believe are the solution. Take, for example, the Kyoto Protocol. It did practically nothing to affect global warming and is a monumental waste of money. One of the foremost advocates for "stopping global warming" said that they affect would be so neglibable that is would be better to spend the money on providing fresh water to most of the world.

Whoa. I never said that mankind was responsible for all the warming. If I did say that, please quote it so I can correct it. I didn't pay enough attention to the movie to comment on whether Gore did. What I'm saying is that we are speeding it up for a fact. Slowing it down might be a good idea. I'm not saying that no warming would occur without mankind, nor am I saying there are no other factors, which you seemed to have presumed from the beginning. There was no intended deception on my part.

You're towing Gore's line. If you lie with the pigs...

Again, you claim a fact that simply hasn't been proven. That's called a theory. Which, again, as I've stated before, if there is a 1 to 1 correlation between temperature and CO2 levels, where is the temperature spike in Gore graph? Oh, you did mention the theory of warming tea kettle or some such rubbish. But again, that's a theory and NOT a fact.



That's great. What does that have to do with my argument that global warming is occuring right now? My problem is that you seem to vehemently deny global warming as a fact, not deny that it can be stopped. I agree - due to the laws of thermodynamics, the temparature on earth is going to increase. But why help it get there faster?

Please, if that's not what you're arguing, help me understand exactly what it is you are arguing.

Read carefully. Where did I say that you wanted it to go uninvestigated? Please point it out. I just said I don't think it should be uninvestigated; I didn't comment on your thoughts whatsoever. I'm not the one fabricating anything.

You said "It's incredibly foolish to let it go uninvestigated just because it might be a 'fad.'" I said it was a fad, but I said nothing about stopping any inquiry.

-CO2 reflects heat back to the earth
-More CO2 therefore reflects more heat back to the earth
-Man is increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere
-Man is therefore increasing the temperature
-If this continues, many problems could occur, including rising worldwide sea levels

One, or more, of those fact are obviously incorrect. Otherwise, (I can't believe that I have to repeat this yet again), where is the corresponding terperature increase? The CO2 parralel the terperature level with almost perfection, at least until the CO2 level spike that the ambient temperature stays nearly where it was before the spike. The facts don't line up with your theory. You can postulate until you're blue in the face, but the facts don't agree with you.

The Earth is continuing to warm up (naturally) at the same pace is was before the CO2 spike.

A little chemistry for thought: Water has a very high specific heat, meaning it takes a relatively large amount of heat to raise the temperature of a given amount of water.

Fine, water takes time to warm up, but what about the simple ambient temperature of the air and ground?

As I said a while ago, just because I defend something doesn't mean I think it's true. However, I do think global warming is occuring (and you seem to agree). But I think that mankind has played a significant role in its speed and that we can, therefore, slow it down a great deal as well (maybe even back to its natural level, or close to it).

Yes, I believe, 100%, that naturally global warming is occuring, but the later half of paragraph is, at best, thoery, and at worst, opinion.

There's way to much unfounded theory and opinions on the part of global warming by humans proponents.

 

[BigDyl]

If you took a neutral standpoint in the global warming debate, would it not still be more beneficial for humans to work on decreasing the output of so called "greenhouse gases," and other associated forms of pollution?

 

[DOMS]

If you took a neutral standpoint in the global warming debate, would it not still be more beneficial for humans to work on decreasing the output of so called "greenhouse gases," and other associated forms of pollution?

Of course. But cleaning up the environment because of the proven problems of pollution is one thing, but trying to coerce people with the mixture of facts, half-truths, lies of omission, and outright lies known as "global warming" is another.

When you deceive someone, even for a good cause, it's manipulation; which means the speaker is trying to do away with free will. That's something that I won't buy into.

 

[Squaggleboggin]

You took that out of context. In was imbeded in the point that it wasn't the the damage wasn't mainlin due to the fact that Katrina was a class 5 hurricane.

When you start taking things out of context, the argument ends. Don't do it again.

Excuse you for being so bold. You asked to point it out. I did. Perfect communication does not exist. That's not my fault.

For the last time, he implied that Katrina is what everyone can expect from global warming. Which is a lie. The primary cause of damage in that incident wasn't the power of Katrina but poor planning on the part of government officials.

Planning or not, warmer waters create stronger storms. Maybe if you repeat the part about poor planning, it'll change that fact. Unless you can explain how I'm wrong, don't bother quoting this part of my post. It's done.

Okay, since you still wont get it, here it is in bolded glory:

It's not about what will happen, it's about drawing the wrong conclusions as a result of using too small a subset of data. Trying to attain goal based on faulty data leads to wasted money and can actually be detrimental.

It's not about what happens? Interesting. And here I thought all this hoopla about global warming was intended to stop a future problem - something that will happen. Perhaps you can explain that to me.

The only thing we're disagreeing on here is whether the time span used is too small of a set. I don't think it's unreasonable to form a conclusion about the next lifetime based on 650,000 years of data. You do.

Can we agree that this last statement is true, yes or no?

I don't need a comparison. If the above wasn't clear, here's a bulleted list:

• Gore is using too small a subset of data. He's ignoring the true range of temperatures.
• The Earth is going to warm up with or without humans.
• The idea that humans are having a significant affect on the Earth's temperature is NOT a fact.
• He, and others, and basing goals and decisions on incomplete, and simply false, data.
• Pursing baseless goals leads to a waste of money and resources.

Again, whether the temperatures were once 1,000 degrees higher than today doesn't affect the outcome of tomorrow. Do you agree, yes or no?

You're towing Gore's line. If you lie with the pigs...

Again, you claim a fact that simply hasn't been proven. That's called a theory. Which, again, as I've stated before, if there is a 1 to 1 correlation between temperature and CO2 levels, where is the temperature spike in Gore graph? Oh, you did mention the theory of warming tea kettle or some such rubbish. But again, that's a theory and NOT a fact.

Please point out where I said the pot on the stove was a fact. (This is a trick: I actually claimed it quite clearly as theory.) If you can't, don't bother quoting this part of my post. It's done.

Please point out where I said there was a 1:1 correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. (Another trick: I quite clearly stated that it would most likely be a nonlinear relationship.) If you can't, don't bother quoting this part of my post. It's done.

Fact: Greenhouse gases increase the temperature of earth.

Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Fact: Humans produce CO2 by breathing out and by burning fossil fuels. (Or do I need a link for that, too?)

Conclusion: Humans contribute to the heating of earth.

All that's needed is some rudamentary logic to figure this out. But wait, I made all of these 'facts' up, obviously. I mean, I don't even have anything whatsoever to say that these are facts. Hmm... Why are those words blue?

Don't get into semantics. Do you or do you not agree that these are all facts; do you or do you not agree that the conclusion logically follows from the facts?

Please, if that's not what you're arguing, help me understand exactly what it is you are arguing.

Humans are contributing to rising CO2 levels. Rising CO2 levels will produce higher temperatures. Sweet and simple.

You said "It's incredibly foolish to let it go uninvestigated just because it might be a 'fad.'" I said it was a fad, but I said nothing about stopping any inquiry.

Please point out where I said you wanted to stop an inquiry. If you can't, there's no need to quote this part of my post. It's done.

One, or more, of those fact are obviously incorrect. Otherwise, (I can't believe that I have to repeat this yet again), where is the corresponding terperature increase? The CO2 parralel the terperature level with almost perfection, at least until the CO2 level spike that the ambient temperature stays nearly where it was before the spike. The facts don't line up with your theory. You can postulate until you're blue in the face, but the facts don't agree with you.

Chemistry 101 (see below).

Fine, water takes time to warm up, but what about the simple ambient temperature of the air and ground?

Water conducts heat. Water absorbs heat. Water requires a lot of heat in order to rise in temperature. There is a lot of water on earth. Therefore, there needs to be a lot of heat in order to make all of that water rise in temperature. That's science. That's fact.

CO2 levels are rising extremely rapidly. It takes time for water to absorb energy and for the greenhouse effect to take place. The water needs to catch up. That's also science. That's also fact.

A 1:1 correlation is not the only kind of correlation. Almost no change in one correlated variable will instantaneously change the other correlated variable.

There's way to much unfounded theory and opinions on the part of global warming by humans proponents.

I'm sure there is.

 

[DOMS]

Excuse you for being so bold. You asked to point it out. I did. Perfect communication does not exist. That's not my fault.

Poor comprehension on your part to not constitute a communication problem on mine.

Planning or not, warmer waters create stronger storms.

Sure, but Gore used Kartina (a very infamous storm) as an example of what happens with global warming. There are plenty of class 5 hurricanes that cause relatively little damage to the US, but he chose that one for sensationalism.

Okay, you're either stupid or playing stupid, but either way I'm done. You're not really debating, you're pulling a Foreman. You know perfectly well why Katrina was chosen. I don't mind you trying to deflect a perfectly good point, but what you're doing is little better than sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nanananananana."

I like a good argument, with all the subtle, and not so subtle, strategic ploys, but this is a nothing more than a waste of time.

 

[brogers]

Did Al Gore mention his ties to Occidental Petroleum in his movie?

The entire "Environmentalist" movement was hijacked by the liberal politicians to score votes a long time ago. There is no rational debate about the subject any longer. If you oppose drastic emission restrictions then you're "killing the planet" etc... It's nothing more than a way for the left to push their anti-business agenda.

 

[DOMS]

Did Al Gore mention his ties to Occidental Petroleum in his movie?

The entire "Environmentalist" movement was hijacked by the liberal politicians to score votes a long time ago. There is no rational debate about the subject any longer. If you oppose drastic emission restrictions then you're "killing the planet" etc... It's nothing more than a way for the left to push their anti-business agenda.

This is the very reason that one of the founders of Green Peace left, and now denounces, that organization.

 

[Squaggleboggin]

Poor comprehension on your part to not constitute a communication problem on mine.

I didn't say the problem was with you. The Internet is a means of imperfect communication, sorry. Besides, you specifically stated that the power of the storm was not what caused it to cause so much damage. My conclusion was not poor comprehension, but was formed because of the context in which it existed. Again, not my fault. Accept it or don't. It doesn't really matter to me.

Sure, but Gore used Kartina (a very infamous storm) as an example of what happens with global warming. There are plenty of class 5 hurricanes that cause relatively little damage to the US, but he chose that one for sensationalism.

Only an idiot would choose a storm that caused no damage as an example. He used it to give perspective: 100,000 displaced people versus 100,000,000. Very simple comparison. You can label it as sensationalism with a Sharpee if you want, but it was used for comparison.

Okay, you're either stupid or playing stupid, but either way I'm done. You're not really debating, you're pulling a Foreman. You know perfectly well why Katrina was chosen. I don't mind you trying to deflect a perfectly good point, but what you're doing is little better than sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nanananananana."

I like a good argument, with all the subtle, and not so subtle, strategic ploys, but this is a nothing more than a waste of time.

I'm not the one ignoring the facts stated above (with proper links, since you seem to think I pulled them out of my ass). I'm not the one refusing to answer easy questions like whether I agree or disagree with something.

But you're right: I'm the one using a ploy; I'm the one playing stupid.

(And, for the record, I didn't actually think he chose Katrina to sensationalize it. My mind isn't that political. I assumed he used it because it was well-known and that there would be no point in saying "During the hurricane that struck the island of Madagascar, 100,000 people were displaced from their homes. Now imagine 100,000,000." It would make no sense. I'm not saying it's not sensationalism, but you must admit there's no point in using a hurricane that isn't known to anyone watching the movie.)

Just to repeat the facts to avoid confusion:

Fact: Greenhouse gases increase the temperature of earth.

Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Fact: Humans produce CO2 by breathing out and by burning fossil fuels. (Or do I need a link for that, too?)

Conclusion: Humans contribute to the heating of earth.

All that's needed is some rudamentary logic to figure this out.

These things stand immutable, regardless of anyone's opinions, including yours and mine. All I can do is shove the data in your face; I can't force you to accept it.

Nice out, by the way - assuming I'm playing stupid. I like it; I may also use it when I realize I can't recover some time. (And, yes, I'm saying this for humor, although it certainly seems to contain an element of truth.)