SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS)
(Voiceover) Al Gore’s 2006 documentary, ‘An Inconvenient Truth,” makes the same point with actual video of ice shelves calving. Which shots have more impact?
AL GORE (FORMER UNITED STATES VICE PRESIDENT)
And if you were flying over it in a helicopter, you’d see it’s 700 feet tall. They are so majestic.
SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS)
(Voiceover) Wait a minute, that shot looks just like the one in the opening credits of “The Day After Tomorrow.”
Not sure Phantom, I recall something like that but I would have to dig back through Climate Audit to find out.
John
AIT, the Fraudulent Movie. Why was Al Gore not run out of town long ago ?
Because a lot of people really don’t mind Con Artists ? Even inmates have a ranking. Child Molesters at the bottom, Con Artists at the top. Because bilking those with, is seen by some as an evening-up ?
Kyoto, just another con – on a grand scale. Countries, instead of people. Hippies, without cars, hitch-hiking on the establishment.
The scientific method is the attempt to provide analytical evidence to support your argument that is created using well formed formal logic. In most cases the approach that is used is you demonstrate that it isn’t the case that your hypothesis is incorrect.
To put this in terms of global warming, the typical approach would be to prove that the “warming” trend we have seen can not be natural, and that it is not/can not be a neutral or positive occurance.
What a large portion of the Global Warming “Science” is, is assuming the hypothesis and then demonstrating how this could be negative using computer models. This is not the scientific method!
Heh, heh… Suzuki Sidekick…
http://www.whiteknight.ca/Img_0121.jpg
A couple of weeks ago I was contacted by someone over the Internet for permission to use one of my photos that he found in an on-line album. It was a photo of a groundhog with green grass in the background and he wanted to use it to illustrate an article demonstrating that spring was arriving earlier due to global warming. Since the photo was clearly labeled as having been taken in early July (five months after Groundhog Day), I though it was a bit disingenuous of him to use it to make a point, but I guess stretching the truth is OK with these people if it’s in a ‘good cause’.
I tried to watch the video but it seems to have been removed. Oh well.
As for the placement of thermometers, 0.2 degrees C would account for about 1/3 of the warming seen in the 20th century. A non-trivial matter.
Cross, et al,
serious question here.
What is the effect in terms of solar radiation from a big hole in the ozone layer on temp. and how is the thickness of the ozone layer add/subtract to any temp change?
Do these holes correspond to the places that show warming?
Ok, the video is back again. Must have been a glitch here.
So, the beef here is that two hysterical environmental movies used the same shot? Sorry, not feeling the outrage.
Kydor,
Like a typical leftard, you miss the morality of lying. It’s wrong because it’s dishonest.
Keep up the fight, comrade. The propagandists need you!
The errors and dishonesty of AIT (an inconvenient truth)puts into question the credibility of both Gore and the claims of AGW.
Through AIT’s promotion by the media, The Nobel Committee and Academy Awards, it has been made a popular symbol of AGW. AIT was produced to educate non-scientific people about AGW. Yet its science (according to a UK judge)is inaccurate and its scenes are contrived. If this prominent symbol of AGW is a work of fiction then perhaps so too is the science that it was developed from.
The revelation that AIT is a fiction not fact should alert the public and media to look deeper into the “settled science” for other false and misleading information.
It’s the Pine Beetles fault now…..
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/417566
“Like a typical leftard, you miss the morality of lying. It’s wrong because it’s dishonest.”
Of all the piles of incredible junk science in the Goreacle’s little propaganda film, you get outraged over what amounts to stock footage.
So, once again, I’m not feeling the outrage. Oh NOES stock footage! Gore LIED. No goddamn kidding. The entire film is nothing but exaggerations and crap science. Using stock footage, once again, is not a lie.
As for calling me a leftard, well, no I’m not. I don’t think anyone has ever called me that before. Either conservatism is losing its way, or I am. Seeing as how my core beliefs have been the same for 20 years, then I would have to say that the movement is losing its way.
Kydor,
I think that the use of CG footage in a movie is ok, Day After Tomorrow wouldn’t be much without them, but DAT was never put forward as a documentary.
Wikipedia defines documentary thus: Documentary film is a broad category of visual expression that is based on the attempt, in one fashion or another, to “document” reality. Note the word reality.
The use of CG footage in a documentary would be fine if it was presented as CG footage.
If polar bears are floundering around in the arctic seas in great numbers and massive chunks of ice 700 feet tall are floating around aimlessly, surely Gore could have gotten actual footage. He didn’t because he couldn’t, or at least thought that nobody would notice the difference. Either way, its a misrepresentation of reality.
Come to think about it, a floating piece of ice that stands 700 feet tall would have to be 7,000 feet thick. The chances of it going anywhere are remote at best given the depth of the Antarctic continental shelf at about 2,600 feet (800 m.) He clearly says it is floating and that it is 700 feet tall. Oh well, its just a documentary, not related to reality or anything.
Speaking of mind control.
Jeeze, you’re starting to look desperate.
Hugger
Samual:
I have seen no evidence of this “consensus” you and the AGW crowd brag about. C.Adler put a call out to any expert who would like to argue on behalf of AGW in 2007 and none have stood up. Would you care to elaborate on who has signed on to this consensus and what their expertise is. I too am an engineer but that does not make me an expert in trains; therefore you being a geolog”ist” or Suzuki being a genetic”ist” doesn’t make you an expert in all things “ist”, except perhaps elit”ist”.
“An Inconvenient truth was simply meant to bring attention to the issue.”
What issue?
Jon
When did I claim to be an expert in all things “ist”?
You guys might get a laugh out of this:
F*ck the Earth Day (Language Warning!)
I don’t get environmentalists opposition to global warming (if it is occuring)
Many of them seem to think that the world is over populated and that this is responsible to depleting resources. They would also argue that the manufacturing of more and more consumer goods and the land taken to feed up all is what is directly casuing global warming, thru increased polution etc etc etc…
The result of global warming from what they tell is that millions of people will die
and I say….
“Why don’t we just let nature take its course. Millions will die thru an act of nature which is not a moral agent. The population will drop and global warming will cease to be a problem because there will be less of us…..who caused the problem in the first place”
Global warming is not the problem. Its the solution !
//sarcasm off
I find it curious that in the past 6 months of seeing john crosses’ posts, I have not seen even ONE time where he’s found favor with the work of anyone but a pro-agw CO2 scientist. What are the chances of that?
I get a kick out the CBC reporting on those poor saps that bought new electric mowers to replace those “poluting” gas mowers.
These electric mowers are essentially powered by coal but even worse yet coal burning plants that captures only 30% of the energy consumed after the conversion.
Another solution they offered was a solar charged battery powered mower. I have one and they can’t shave a bald spot off a hairy arse.
I own one because we only have 500 square ft of lawn( and a noise law) and it barely has enough power to cut that.
“I suspect that some are people who don’t understand how science works, some are people in denial, and some people objectively examine the data and reach a different conclusion than the majority of scientists. You have to consider whether that differing conclusion comes from a lack of expertise in evaluating the data or whether they have legitimate concerns.”
Samual: I read your post again and you are right. My bad.
That being said if you read what I have in quotes you still come off as having a very haughty perspective (in my opinion). Having a differing opinion from you must point to a lack of expertise, or better yet ignorance. Consider this: as a geologist you don’t have the expertise to see the politics of AWG that are at play.
Since you have expertly examined the “consensus” of the scientific community, would be so kind to provide a link to your unanimous list of scientists? Your statement infers that you have independently looked into this consensus, it wouldn’t be very “scientific” to take the Goreicles word for it. That would be “faith”.
Perhaps there are several considerations when sorting through the rhetoric from all sides of the debate:
The average experience of “Climate Scientists” is not more than 10 years. It is an expanding employment opportunity. The majority of “Climate Scientists” are employed by organizations in which Policy trumps science.
Scientists can be divided for sake of argument into three classes:
Those whose job it is to measure Reality honestly and accurately to find Truth.
Those whose job it is to support the Policy on which their continued employment depends.
Those whose income is not dependent on Policy by reason of being retired or being of independent means
Few are fortunate enough to fall into the first category.
Most fall in the second category.
A small number (relatively) occupy the unfettered third category. (Mostly old, experienced, properly disinterested old guys and girls)
Since scientists are drawn from the Human Race it would be wrong to assume they are not subject to the same virtues, vices, deficiencies, hopes, fears, desires, manipulations, persuasions, and coercions as everyone else. While we may dream them to above coercion and to adhere to the highest standards of ethics, there are rogues and opportunists. There are the weak and the bullies. There are the egotistic and the mild. And there are the principled.
There may be some value in filtering all opinions and statements through the above filters. One might also “follow the money” and judge on the basis of who benefits.
” I don’t see why there’s so much hostility toward them.” — Samuel
Because AGW is so clearly ideological, pushed by socialistic, anti-western ideologues who want to control other people’s lives. The message is always so blatantly political. It’s never, “it’s too late to do anything”, or, “it may not be too bad”; it’s always “catastrophe is imminent, but can be averted if only you will let us run your lives”.
That is why there is so much push-back.
Jon
I’m not sure what you’re asking for here… I wouldn’t say that I’ve really looked into the “consensus”. Frankly, I don’t care that much about “the consensus”.
Scientific organizations in agreement with AGW.
Does that help?
Anyway, I’ve looked into some of the data that other scientists have used to conclude that AGW is legitamate, including studies “for” and “against”, and concluded that we humans are likely having an affect on the global atmosphere, and that effect will continue to increase.
Maybe those carbon credits are working after all
Perhaps there are several considerations when sorting through the rhetoric from all sides of the debate:
The average experience of “Climate Scientists” is not more than 10 years. It is an expanding employment opportunity. The majority of “Climate Scientists” are employed by organizations in which Policy trumps science.
Scientists can be divided for sake of argument into three classes:
Those whose job it is to measure Reality honestly and accurately to find Truth.
Those whose job it is to support the Policy on which their continued employment depends.
Those whose income is not dependent on Policy by reason of being retired or being of independent means
Few are fortunate enough to fall into the first category.
Most fall in the second category.
A small number (relatively) occupy the unfettered third category. (Mostly experienced, properly-disinterested old guys and girls: Their careers are not at risk. The have the luxury of doing science for the sake of science.)
Since scientists are drawn from the Human Race it would be wrong to assume they are not subject to the same virtues, vices, deficiencies, hopes, fears, desires, manipulations, persuasions, and coercions as everyone else. While we may dream them to above coercion and to adhere to the highest standards of ethics, there are rogues and opportunists. There are the weak and the bullies. There are the egotistic and the mild. And there are the principled.
There may be some value in processing all opinions and statements through the above filters. One might also “follow the money” and judge on the basis of who benefits from the position taken.
Samual:
TY for the link to Wiki.
I think you do know what I am asking for, the list of 750 scientists who have for lack of a better term have “stamped” their names and reputations on this “settled” science. Engineers must “stamp” their work which says “I take responsibility for what I have said here, the design is settled.”
You did get me again though, you said “majority” not “consensus”. You must care somewhat about this “majority” since it is the basis and anchor for your argument.
All that needs to be said is – so?
That Gore used material from elsewhere is irrelevant and hardly deceitful unless he used the material without permission from the owners. If Gore used it without permission then there is potential for copyright infringement, otherwise the use of snippets from more than one media is hardly unusual, especially in documentaries.
As for it being deceitful because it was a manufactured graphic rather than actual footage, the question that idea raises is “does the graphic represent actual current/past events or faithfully represent a valid view of future events?” If so, then it is not deceitful.
Does someone here have evidence that the image does not reflect reality, or that it does not fit scientific predictions, or that it was used without permission? If you don’t, then what basis do you have for claiming deceit? I mean other than your emotional response to science you don’t like.
The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) today released the names of over 500 endorsers of the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change that calls on world leaders to “reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.” All taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) should “be abandoned forthwith”, declaration signatories conclude.
Included in the endorser list are world leading climate scientists, economists, policymakers, engineers, business leaders, medical doctors, as well as other professionals and concerned citizens from two dozen countries. The complete declaration text, endorser lists and international media contacts for expert commentary, may be viewed at
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1
Also:
Apr 23, 2008
Scientist Who voted for Gore in 2000 Now Debunks Warming Fears
By Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington University
We’ve been warming up about a degree per century since the Little Ice Age in about 1600. We’ve been warming for 400 years, long before human-generated CO2 could have anything to do with the climate. If we project the previous century into the coming one, my projection is that we will have about a half-a-degree of cooling from 2007 (plus or minus three to five years) to about 2040. Then it will start getting warmer as we enter the next warm cycle, followed by cooling again.
For a number of interviews, especially in the national news media, they ask ‘Are you a Republican?’ and I say ‘No, I�m not, as a matter of fact, I voted for Al Gore. I don�t want to pick on him because he�s not a scientist.’ The nonsense he spews comes from the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], so in a sense I don’t condemn him as much as I do the so-called climatologists like [James] Hansen, who says things that are idiotic. They’re the ones giving him all this stuff.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf
agw hysteri-cysts, enjoy!
Gary Bohn,
Go back up to:
John Nicklin at April 23, 2008 3:42 PM
Your a snake-oil salesman’s dream.
err – You’re
Okay, so here’s the problem I have with Gore illustrating his “An Inconvenient Truth” with Hollywood theatre. First, AIT doesn’t portray itself as a piece intended to simply “raise awareness of an issue”. If it were so it would present both sides of the issue. It would present a serious discussion of the criticisms of the AGW theory. AIT doesn’t do that. It comes down squarely as claiming that human CO2 production is causing rising earth temperature with catastrophic results, and it claims that “science” supports that contention. It wraps itself in the flag of science. It attempts to take upon itself the authority of the scientific method without submitting itself to the responsibility or discipline of the scientific method. If, in a “science” documentary one chooses to speculate, then inform the viewer that what they will see is clearly speculation unless it is blatantly obvious (recreations of the appearances of dinosaurs for instance). Credit your sources. If the opening scene is fake then what else is fake? How much fakery takes us from “science documentary” to “Al Gore’s Traveling Medicine Show”? Hey, I like listening to a good carney huckster as much as the next guy. It’s fun. It’s entertaining. But I know when I enter the fair grounds that that’s what I’m in for. What I do not appreciate is going to a scientific meeting and getting PT Barnum. Likewise I do not appreciate PT Barnum muddying the waters for an already scientifically illiterate population by portraying himself as a spokesman for Einstein or his traveling medicine show as a documentary. Barnum made himself rich on the truth that, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” I shudder to think that he may have underestimated.
The other thing to consider is why the pro-AGWers refuse to openly debate the skeptics. If the settled science is so rock solid and their opposition are all quacks then the AGWers should jump at the chance to prove it. Instead they engage in character assassination, bully, threaten. They also claim that opposition are deniers, in the pockets of Big Oil or delusional conspiracy theorists. Those are not the actions of people who have a solid scientific case or in honest science. It looks more like an attempt to hide bad science behind a wall of aggression and exaggeration.
Samuel. Re: April 23 1:59
You state that you are one who “thinks that anthropogenic climate change is in all likelihood occurring”.
Could you explain what man-made condition is driving global temperature and how it works?
Just as an addendum, the graphic used by both Gore and “The Day After Tomorrow” was a depiction of a real event, the Larsen B calving.
Sorry folks, but Gore using the same graphic as TDAT is hardly deceit. Even the author of the graphic is OK with Gore’s use of it.
Posted by: JJM: So deceit is fine as long as it brings “attention to the issue.”
Turn up the bullshit detector sensitivity to 11 whenever you hear the phrase, “raising awareness”.
>>Go back up to:
>>John Nicklin at April 23, 2008 3:42 PM
>>Your a snake-oil salesman’s dream.
The points Nicklin makes would be good if they were true. CG is used in documentaries all the time, especially when the documentaries are about events where getting actual film is difficult, like the Larsen B calving. The calving was caught from above but not at the angle used by TDAT and Gore. The comment that Nicklin makes about “surely Gore could have gotten actual footage” is only valid if someone was there to take the film.
Nicklin’s comment “floating piece of ice that stands 700 feet tall would have to be 7,000 feet thick. ” would also be interesting if accurate, but it isn’t. Gore was talking about the ice shelf that spawned Larsen B being 700 ft tall before the calving. Ice shelves for the most part do not float on the ocean because the ocean eats away at the underside leaving them suspended. It’s the splash and subsequent wave created by the ice shelf drop that is so spectacular to watch. The icebergs resulting from the calving would not be sticking out of the water 700ft, but Gore did not say they did.
I’m sorry, but the post you directed me to did not debunk my statement in the least.
Posted by: OMMAG the next time their begging for money I’ll be calling to NOT pledge a damned thing …. ever again.
I donated a couple hundred bucks to KSPS (because I like some of their programming) and I got a letter back from them this week. The contents of the letter was asking for MORE money!
Gore put it in there to deceive his audience or he would have acknowledged it source. Just because TDAT’s author okays it does not make the deception more palatable. Besides AIT has a pattern of stretching the truth. Here are the other 9 errors in the film (as ruled by a UK judge):
1 Sea levels will rise by up to 20 feet “in the near future.”
2 Pacific atolls have been evacuated.
3 Gulf Stream will shut down.
4 Graphs showing rise in temperature and carbon dioxide are “an exact fit.”
5 Global warming caused Hurricane Katrina.
6 Global warning dried up Lake Chad.
7 Global warming is bleaching coral reefs
8 Polar bears drowned when they couldn’t find ice.
9 Global warming melted snow on Mount Kilimanjaro.
>>Psst. Glaciers don’t “calve” icebergs unless they are GROWING. Shrinking glaciers simply retreat. So whether it was CGG isn’t the issue. The issue is that the footage doesn’t support the premise.
No, glaciers don’t calve unless they are moving over open water, the operative word is “moving”. However, ice shelfs are not glaciers in the sense you seem to be talking about where movement of land based glaciers creates large icebergs as the ice reaches the ocean (or some other warmth). Ice shelves calve, which is actually a collapse, when water develops on the surface thinning it from the top and warmth from the ocean eats away at the bottom until the shelf cannot support its own weight.
>> Neither does the science, but the intelligent people already understand that.
If the science you are supporting is anything like the misunderstanding you posted above, then climatologists have nothing to worry about.
>> Poor lefties. Yet another great social scheme thwarted by that pesky “science”, stuff.
From this I suspect you believe harbouring extreme doubt about anthropogenic climate change is a necessary and sufficient requirement to be a conservative.
Go to http://www.darwincentral.org, which is a group of American conservatives, many who are working scientists who do not doubt global warming.
>> Posted by: Sober2ndThought at April 23, 2008 10:02 AM
I can’t say your argument was terribly convincing, sorry.
>>if the science is sound, if the fate of the population is certain, why the trickery? why the ruse?
>>it’s insulting
Posted by: bruce riley at April 23, 2008 5:57 AM
What ruse?
Gore screws up in the movie often enough for complaints to be made, but this one little segment is accurate.
lynnh: Two responses to your comments. First, Andrew Dessler tried all fall to get a skeptic to go to his class to discuss global warming with them. He could not get anyone to participate. However he did arrange a debate with Dr. Ball through some sort of phone in show – but Dr. Ball ended up not showing up.
In regards to the judge finding “errors” in AIT, if you read the judgment it shows that the errors are in the examples Gore used in his movie. The judge is quite clear that he accepts the science behind AGW.
As always, links available upon request.
John
>>Posted by: bruce riley at April 23, 2008 6:38 AM
The link you posted is quite interesting. If the scientists do have scientific evidence that solar forcing is superseding anthropogenic forcing I would like to see it. It would surely be a refreshing change from current anti-AGW arguments.
I like listening to a good carney huckster as much as the next guy. It’s fun. It’s entertaining. But I know when I enter the fair grounds that that’s what I’m in for.
Hey DrD, maybe the MSM *is* the fair grounds, it’s just that most people don’t realize it yet and think it’s there for education and enlightenment.
Gary Bohn,
I wasn’t trying to “debunk” anything. Just attempting to point out the direction where reality lives.
Some of us actually like reality a bit more than Hollywood’s “based on reality” shows.
BTW: I like watching ninjas jumping 30 feet into air to fight … it’s entertainment, not science.
>>>Just one example of scientific opposition to AGW was outlined by Greg – the 2008 Heartland Conference.
I just went to a site that listed the speakers of that conference and performed a short random sampling of the qualifications and expertise of those speakers. It seems the number of scientists is low and the number of scientists actively researching climate even lower.
Since you are the one posting this link, could you please present a break down of the number of scientists in total and the number of active climate scientists speaking at that conference?
I guess I’ll have to thank you for all that work you will be doing ahead of time, so thank you.
While you are at it could you explain to me how that conference is objective? After all, you anti-AGW people do complain about the AGW proponent’s agenda, making consideration of agenda fair game.
>>I don’t know if you’ve noticed that the verbiage of those promoting AGW has moved from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’.
The term climate change and the understanding that changes in factors such as reflection of light from glaciers (we now call albedo) would cause strange and wonderful changes to the environment since the late 1800s.
(See Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius and Chamberlin)
In the 1950’s, physical models of fluid dynamics showed that changes in one factor influences all the others. Other models showed similar effects. (See Ewing and Donn, and Phillips)
The only motive behind the insistence of scientists for journalists to use climate change instead of global warming is because there is a common error of understanding of the affects of global temperature increases on local weather patterns. Many seem to think that global warming indicates a smooth, incremental, consistent increase in temp where each year has to be warmer than the preceding year, and that all localities will experience the same weather patterns as in the past, only warmer. This misunderstanding seems to be fueled by the term ‘global warmng’. Climate change is less likely to cause it.
To a scientist, global warming is the statistically predictable increase in global mean temperatures over time. Climate change is the consequence of that warming, primarily on arbitrarily selected local patterns.
>>Or that the solutuion proposed by these AGW promoters has been a money scam, where the industrial nations pay to build factories in so-called ‘developing nations’ such as China and India – which are totally exempt from any emissions or pollution controls. Doesn’t sound like an agenda of reducing emissions/pollution. Sounds like an agenda of getting the West to pay for the industrial factories of China/India.
OK, on the publicly promoted solutions I have to agree with you, they are restrictive instead of expansive, high in cost, low in benefit, and disruptive.
>>So, I find your comment strange – that you are a professional geologist, and yet, you glide over the scientific expertise of the dissenters of AGW (some people) and readily accept the statements of the IPCC – many of whom are not expert in that area.
Which group from the IPCC are you talking about, Group I, Group II, Group III, or the politicians?
>>Posted by: ET at April 23, 2008 9:40 AM
The fact is that AIT is supposedly to educate the public about AGW. But the examples are wrong. Therefore its credibility and its educational value are also suspect.
BTW – What predictions have the IPCC or Gore made that have come true? Warming in the troposphere? Warming in the Oceans? Warming on the surface? Hurricanes? Things that can be proven to be caused by AGW.
The proposers of AGW should have to prove their case based on being right about actual events rather than skeptics having to disprove science that is based on models.
“In Al Gore’s America, any “global warming denier” is guilty until proven innocent. He or she must have been bought off by Big Oil. Skeptics, no matter how well-qualified, must prove the negative about really silly alarmist hogwash. And whenever some prediction is falsified, the warm mongers have an explanation: it’s just a temporary glitch in the data. Oh, yes, we were wrong about 1998, but just wait till 2050! The excuses are endless….Putting the burden of proof on the doubters is a perversion of normal, healthy science…If politically correct ideas are true by default, the Al Gores can prove anything.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/the_slick_trick_behind_global.html
They have debated and the AGW were the clear losers, even with a crowd who at the beginning were AGW believers.
Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate
March 16, 2007
Posted By Marc Morano – 8:45 AM ET – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.gov
Just days before former Vice President Al Gore’s scheduled visit to testify about global warming before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, a high profile climate debate between prominent scientists Wednesday evening ended with global warming skeptics being voted the clear winner by a tough New York City before an audience of hundreds of people.
Before the start of the nearly two hour debate the audience polled 57.3% to 29.9% in favor of believing that Global Warming was a “crisis”, but following the debate the numbers completely flipped to 46.2% to 42.2% in favor of the skeptical point of view. The audience also found humor at the expense of former Vice President Gore’s reportedly excessive home energy use.