Oregon Media Insiders

Honestly, the quote Rob made specifically pointed out the claim in the "documentary" that global warming caused hurricane Katrina...and that claim is simply unfounded. Another comment on this board mentioned that we must look at the entire period of record to truly see if global warming has a direct effect on hurricanes. That is true. We don't currently, and may never have enough data going back to make that direct connection in the future. I don't think that anyone is disputing the fact that the globe is warming...we aren't blind, and the evidence is there. The discussions should focus, not on whether global warming is happening, but WHY is it happening and who or what is responsible for it's acceleration.

As for the "just a weatherman" comments, that "weatherman" graduated from a highly respected university, and for many METEOROLOGISTS, including myself, there is a difficult curriculum which must be completed to earn the title. When others take differential/integral/multi-variable calculus, differential equations, chemistry, calculus-based physics, forecasting & analysis, synoptic and satellite meteorology, atmospheric dynamics/thermodynamics/physics, and computer programming...not to mention other core classes and electives...and come out on top, then we'll talk.

Hey Rocky, we can't hear you through the sand...

Who the hell cares how the movie was shot? Really. The movie was a giant slideshow on the topic of global warming. Were his facts wrong? Which ones?

Thought we were talking about the facts of the movie, not Gore's house?
And the fact that the weather guy thinks he's an authority. Brahhaaha

So your argument is that since Al Gore uses a lot of electricity, clearly the earth's climate must not be changing.

If only we had more intellectuals like you, maybe we could find a way to re-freeze all those glaciers that have melted.

Buy a run-down 1200 sq ft house in the burbs?

I'll tell yuh, if I had millions upon millions, I'd have a large house and a Gulfstream 5!

Once the universe collapses, it's not going to matter what I ever did.

Viewer Rick

Actually, if Gore moved into a 1200 sq foot house, that would gain him more respect from me. A Leader who walks the walk. Those, as you know, are scarce, whether they be blue or red.

Look, there should be no debate about global warming. It's happening. Evidence shows that people probably have something to do with it. We could be the main cause, and we might not be. I think for scientists to presume we know everything there is to know about natural forces (solar cycles, cosmic forces) to definitively say they have nothing to do with it is arrogant and foolish. That being said, conservation and smart sustainability on our part is never a bad idea...global warming or not.

The thing that pisses me off is the politicization of this. I think Gore has actually hurt the cause more since he is so beloved by dems and reviled by conservatives. If he were more apolitical, then his message wouldn't have been so muddied, and we wouldn't be arguing over his movie..and perhaps EVERYONE would buy into a pro-enviroment message.

If Gore lived in a 1200 square foot house, you'd write him off as a crackpot. Think Ed Begley Jr. if you'd like a sample punching bag. Gore uses his position and influence, as well as his wealth and resources to work this issue into the national dialogue. Complaining that he's not living "green" enough is a cheap right-wing distraction technique, and it's remarkable to me that it works so easily.

Scientists don't presume to know everything about global warming. That's another right wing straw man. Scientists have overwhelmingly concluded that we are very likely a major cause in this phenomenon. That's all. If new data comes to light, these same scientists will gladly admit they were wrong. That's how science works. So show'em that data you have about the cosmic forces and we can put this whole mess to bed.

I think Ed Begley's far from a crackpot. Maybe a little eccentric, but I admire his green attitude. I like his show.

Since you seem to have such intimate knowledge of how I think, let me tell you (once again), I'd admire Gore if he moved into a smaller place. This has nothing to do with 'right wing hacks' (I don't listen to them anyway), this has to do with someone believing in their message enough to alter their life for it. That's something I admire..not another talking head politician telling me to conserve, while he hops in his SUV to the airport where his Gulfstream jet awaits. That's not something we should be surprised with; politicians, whether you support them or not, are hypocrites. This is part of the reason I personally am so disenchanted with both the demos and the republicans and their foamy mouthed supporters...but that's another rant.

The problem is, between Bush and Co silencing global warming scientists on behalf of big oil and the supposedly open-minded gestapo Left berating anyone who disagrees with them, they have all turned this whole environment thing into a political pissing match, which is idiotic and will do more harm to the environment than good. That was the point of my last post.

I consume a lot of scientific articles, but am no scientist. You yourself use the words "very likely" to describe whether humans contribute to global warming. It is there where we agree..we "probably" are, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear about other factors not yet identified that contribute, and we have no control over.

No one says "Yes, humans are the main and sole reason for warming".. Science is about being skeptical and searching for facts, yet being skeptical either way in the global warming debate opens you up to partisan accusations. It's a shame.

How small does Gore's house have to be to earn your respect? Is it ok if he drives a hybrid, or does he need to bicycle to the airport? Can he fly first class, or does it need to be coach? Can he buy carbon offsets for his plane trips, or is that not good enough? Can he purchase green energy for his large house, or does he have to move? What if he installs solar panels? At what point will his behavior be good enough?

Thing is, global warming isn't argued much by people who study it. It's the "talking head" politicians that make it a controversy. But you accept the "facts" of Gore's wastefulness without the skepticism you're willing to apply to the topic of climate change.

No.

I am a degreed meteorologist, and I believe that I know more about the issue of climate change than Al Gore. And since Rob Marciano has a similar educational background and career experience to my own, I believe that Rob knows more about climate change than Al Gore as well.

So if Al Gore had an AMS seal, he'd finally be qualified to talk about this? Chances are, you were still earning that degree when Gore was first calling attention to global warming.

So if someone talks about something before you earn a degree about it, you don't know as much as the first person? Was Gore talking about this before or after he invented the internet?

I'm saying twenty years experience as a national leader on this subject probably trumps your degree, yes. I have a degree, too, and I assure you there are people with NO college education that can run circles around me in my chosen field.

It's sad that you've resorted to the "invented the internet" thing. You know he never said that, and what he did say was, within the goofy standards of campaign-speak, accurate.

I feel that Gore is an excellent messenger. However, I can't help but feel that his message on Climate Change is politically tainted. (Which is fine... he's a politician; he's supposed to slant his messages.) I would feel the same about a conservative politician taking a stand on a scientific issue as well.

"An Incovenvient Truth" is more a persuasive documentary than an informative one. And while I respect Gore's passion for spreading his message and position on Climate Change in such a broad and accessible manner, I do not believe he is objective on this issue. And because I believe that, I cannot view Al Gore as a credible, scientific voice on the issue of Climate Change.

Bringing this back to the Rob Marciano discussion, I find no fault in Rob's words. He's scientifically educated and he understands the issue. And he has no political motives that I'm aware of. His message was more informative than persuasive. For that reason, I'm inclined to trust him (and others like him) over any politician.

Bottom line... when politicians become involved in science, then science becomes political. And that's about the worst scientific mistake humanity can make.

No fault with Marciano's words, maybe. But his demeanor? Applauding? How is that professional? How is that unbiased?

Here's an exercise: anchor reads a story about Dennis Kucinich drafting articles of impeachment against GW for war crimes. Coming out of the VO, a co-anchor applauds Kucinich. What he says is reasonable enough ("there is certainly debate about whether the President lied...blah blah blah"), but the act of applauding reveals pretty startling bias, don't you think?

Marciano stated flat-out that there are inaccuracies in the film, then proceeds to present... none. Just some watery language about no conclusive proof.

Historically, the worst mistake humanity tends to make is to deny the message and attack the messenger.

So, "more than gore," have you ever picked up a copy of Earth in the Balance?

We are coming out of an ice age.

If you want to stop global warming, turn off the sun. Or just block the sun. Simple as that. No sun and the earth will be in global freezing fairly quickly. And nothing man can do will stop it.

Simple as that.

With the newspapers saying 40% of CO2 emissions coming from the generation of electricity by coal and oil means, stop building coal and oil powered electricity plants and convert the current ones.

Everyone makes it sound like the USA is the worst offender and causes the ice to melt at the poles. China is polluting more than the USA. They are also building coal plants like they are in a race to see who can build the most in a year. One would think that all the snow in the Himalayas should be melting because they are right next to China.

Buying and selling carbon offsets is a gimmick that won't solve anything. If you believe that man is causing the problem, then stop doing what it is that causes the problem. Don't trade your usage with someone else.

California says they are a green state and are doing things the right way. Oregon's governor likes them and thinks Oregon should model itself after the California methods. California isn't all that green as they would like you to believe. Their energy needs are growing at a high rate. They stay green in California by building coal plants in Wyoming, Arizona, and elsewhere and shipping the electricity to California. They are green at another states expense. That does not solve the problem but it sounds good inside California.

Conserve, built alternate methods of generating electricity, do all that. Get rid of dependence on oil and coal. If we did not use coal, we would not have miners getting trapped in caveins. Of course, they would be out of jobs. Maybe they could move to Oregon and maintain the windmills..... if the blades don't fall off and kill them.

Bleh! The Nobel Peace Prize is a _political_ award. It says nothing about the scientific merits, it's only about how good your PR machine works. And yes, I do include Mother Teresa in this sweeping generalization.

Interesting to see people getting so worked up over this issue. What's the deal? Why so mad at Gore? Don't you think educating the public about global warming is a good thing? I guess I just don't understand how a person could be against such a thing.

Are you one of Gore's 5 year old "Kindergarten Corps" supporters? You sure sound like one with your brayying and name calling. You must have missed nap time. You don't paint the liberals around here in a very good light with you childish comments.

As for Gore, good for him, but I still think the mere fact he took up this cause has politicized it, and therefore made it less likely that anything will be done. Divided we fall, after all.

This nation is polarized by two hypocritical parties. If a politician you don't like preaches to you about something, you'll automatically dismiss it, whether it be Bush, Gore or anyone. Obviously many in this country disagree with him, and those same people have already written off Global Warming...much to the detriment of the world.

He's right that the world is heating up, but he really stretched his facts and sensationalized the outcomes. Open your mind, put away your blind loyalties temporarily and do a little research and you'll see.

Thank for you succinctly and accurately summarizing the situation. It's right on...

I wonder how this entire Global Warming issue will be looked at in hindsight. The way I see it, there are two possibilities:

1) This issue is similar to the Ozone layer issue of the 1980s (but bigger) -- where it eventually becomes totally accepted that humans are damaging our planet, a solution is proposed and enacted (despite opposition), and the human-caused problems are repaired over time. Or,

2) Skeptical scientists of human-caused Global Warming end up being modern-day Galileos... rogue scientists who dare defy conventional thinking and are accused of heresy-of-doctrine... but, in the end, turn out to be correct despite their minority viewpoint.

Despite what we often hear in the media (or in "An Inconvenient Truth"), Global Warming *is* still a legitimate two-sided (yet lop-sided) issue. We *need* people like Rob Marciano (and not politicians) to speak out and share their knowledge & viewpoint, regardless of what "side" they're on. (And, frankly, true scientists won't have a "side" -- the scientific facts they present will speak for themselves.)

Congratulations to Al Gore for his prize. It is a huge accomplishment and reward for his work. However, the award does nothing to prove that his scientific beliefs are correct. Those beliefs could very well turn out to be in parallel with the "world-is-flat" beliefs of yesteryear. And only the future's history will know the real truth, inconvenient or otherwise...

I don't really have to spell out the other possible outcomes, right?

The argument against that logic is pretty sound. What if my prediction of an imminent zombie attack turns out to be true? Shouldn't we take defensive measures against the zombies, just in case?

To someone who denies global warming, the predictions are just voodoo. They don't merit consideration.

The problem I have is that this skepticism doesn't come from science, it comes from politics and political ideology. This is just another battle of science vs power. Sure, science always wins, but it can take a hell of a long time. Problem is, this may be one instance where we don't have time.