Al Gore Vs. Science (The Other Side Of The Story)

Rockadelic · June 2006

As discussed here earlier there is indeed two sides to the Global Warming argument.While the below article was published in Canada, notice that the scientists involved are from all over the world.Furthermore, these are highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts.I'm certainly not blowing Global Warming off as a crock of shit, but if you are interested in the topic you should at least hear both sides of the story.Especially if most of what you know was learned by watching the Gore propaganda scare tactic flick.http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

karlophone · June 2006

i read that article earlier and agree its very interesting. While I didnt watch the movie, (Gore gives me the heebie-jeebies), I am sure our activities are in some way fucking some things up, and at least on moral grounds we ought to be far more respectful of our home - but proper debate about this stuff cant be based on mis-directed/inapplicable/manipulated data, etc. Passion does not = proof ...though it is good to be passionate about repairing things.

twoply · June 2006

Man, I spent quite a bit of time last year studying the issue of global warming, and I couldn't come to any conclusions on who to believe. It seems to me that global warming definitely exists, and is a very real threat, but it's very hard to predict a timeline or series of possible consequences stemming from the threat.

My opinion (which I fully realize no one asked for): industry would like us to believe it doesn't exist, while environmentalists would like us to panic over the forthcoming destruction of humanity in our lifetime.

[/rockadelic]

Rockadelic · June 2006

Man, I spent quite a bit of time last year studying the issue of global warming, and I couldn't come to any conclusions on who to believe. It seems to me that global warming definitely exists, and is a very real threat, but it's very hard to predict a timeline or series of possible consequences stemming from the threat.

My opinion (which I fully realize no one asked for): industry would like us to believe it doesn't exist, while environmentalists would like us to panic over the forthcoming destruction of humanity in our lifetime.

[/rockadelic]

I agree

lucero · June 2006

uhh, I don't think that it is that difficult to predict what might result from climate change

the warming of the gulf stream also has some predictable (and alarming) consequences for the UK and nothern europe - there is a clickable graphic here

Dabney_Soulman · June 2006

I just saw the movie and I'm fucking frightened.

but a lot of that has to do with the fearmongering that sometimes got in the way of the message.

rootlesscosmo · June 2006

uhh, I don't think that it is that difficult to predict what might result from climate change

the warming of the gulf stream also has some predictable (and alarming) consequences for the UK and nothern europe - there is a clickable graphic here

[complacent american] well, California looks like it's gonna be just fine! What's all the fuss about? [/complacent american]

Fatback · June 2006

excuse me, but the are no "other" sides in science. there are multiple theories that may or may not be supported by empirical evidence. the end. bye.

plaese to get off this 3rd grade Bert and Ernie everything is some dichotomy shit.

Rockadelic · June 2006

excuse me, but the are no "other" sides in science. there are multiple theories that may or may not be supported by empirical evidence. the end. bye.

plaese to get off this 3rd grade Bert and Ernie everything is some dichotomy shit.

Don't know if I'd go as far as comparing Gore's use of "science" to Sesame Street but you're heading in the right direction.

funky16corners · June 2006

I just saw the movie and I'm fucking frightened.

but a lot of that has to do with the fearmongering that sometimes got in the way of the message.

Perhaps in this case "fearmongering" is entirely appropriate???

z_illa · June 2006

excuse me, but the are no "other" sides in science. there are multiple theories that may or may not be supported by empirical evidence. the end. bye.

plaese to get off this 3rd grade Bert and Ernie everything is some dichotomy shit.

Don't know if I'd go as far as comparing Gore's use of "science" to Sesame Street but you're heading in the right direction.

Rock. What is your argument? The issue regarding global warming has to do with the fact that we KNOW there are better ways to make energy.

The on thing that struck me the most in the article is this:

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change.

This misses the point completely. Of course predictions of the future are predictions. Straw fucking man. The point is we know burning fossil fuels is more harmful than other technologies. Companies making record profits need government intervention to stop them from producing a product more harmful to society than these other technologies.

How can people walk into a palm reading shop and take that knowledge with a grain of salt and some people can't watch Gore's movie and take a prediction as a prediction?

Rockadelic · June 2006

excuse me, but the are no "other" sides in science. there are multiple theories that may or may not be supported by empirical evidence. the end. bye.

plaese to get off this 3rd grade Bert and Ernie everything is some dichotomy shit.

Don't know if I'd go as far as comparing Gore's use of "science" to Sesame Street but you're heading in the right direction.

Rock. What is your argument? The issue regarding global warming has to do with the fact that we KNOW there are better ways to make energy.

The on thing that struck me the most in the article is this:

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change.

This misses the point completely. Of course predictions of the future are predictions. Straw fucking man. The point is we know burning fossil fuels is more harmful than other technologies. Companies making record profits need government intervention to stop them from producing a product more harmful to society than these other technologies.

How can people walk into a palm reading shop and take that knowledge with a grain of salt and some people can't watch Gore's movie and take a prediction as a prediction?

The point I am/was trying to make is summed up in the last paragraph of the article.

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.[/b]

In my opinion Gore presents his side of Global Warming as "scientific fact" the same way the Relgious Right present their side of Creationism.

He uses select scientists who have vested interest in his stance, but little expertise in the specific field.

He is also using base fear and guilt, not unlike the Religious Right, to scare people into seeing his distorted and speculative side of the argument.

We all know humans exist, yet there has always been debate as to how we were created/evolved.

We all know Global Warming exists but there is valid debate as to what is the cause.

Personally I side with the scientists on both the Evolution and Natural Global Warming theories.

And while I can respect folks who believe in either Creationism or Al Gore's "Man Is Dooming The Planet" prediction/theory, I think they are wrong.

I totally support alternative energy source research and as stated here before(ad nauseum) I work in the field of Environmental Stewardship.

I just feel what Al Gore is presenting is both inaccurate and harmful and while his "side of the story" gets presnted to millions, the other side is virtually ignored.

And do you think most people who saw the Gore movie left thinking it was "a prediction" or undeniable fact??

At the very least y'all now know more about the topic by reading the article I posted than you did before...and that can't be a bad thing.

hammertime · June 2006

And do you think most people who saw the Gore movie left thinking it was "a prediction" or undeniable fact??

exactly.

Guzzo · June 2006

I just saw the movie and I'm fucking frightened.

but a lot of that has to do with the fearmongering that sometimes got in the way of the message.

Perhaps in this case "fearmongering" is entirely appropriate???

I don't think so. I'm guessing the audience that is going to watch this film is already prepared to make a change, they just need to be educated in how to do so. Now they have a little more knowledge and a lot more to be worried about.

It's the people who beleive the global warming doesn't exist that need to be scared straight. But even then I don't know if putting fear in someone is the best way to get your message across.

LaserWolf · June 2006

He uses select scientists who have vested interest in his stance, but little expertise in the specific field.
I understand industries vested intrest in this and other fights over enviormental science and health.

Beyond protecting the health and well being of people, plants and animals, what are the scientists vested intrest here?

By the way it was an intersting article. I will tear it to shreads in my next post.

LaserWolf · June 2006

Before I tear that article to shreads let's agree on the simple facts.

Global warming is real.

Co2s impact global warming.

Fossil fuels add to the Co2s in the atmosphere.

Predictions of how fast global warming is and will occur are predictions.

Predictions on the effect of global warming are predictions.

Rockadelic · June 2006

Before I tear that article to shreads let's agree on the simple facts.

Global warming is real.

Co2s impact global warming.

Fossil fuels add to the Co2s in the atmosphere.

Predictions of how fast global warming is and will occur are predictions.

Predictions on the effect of global warming are predictions.

As basic facts I agree with all of these.

d_word · June 2006

As discussed here earlier there is indeed two sides to the Global Warming argument.

While the below article was published in Canada, notice that the scientists involved are from all over the world.

Furthermore, these are highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts.

I'm certainly not blowing Global Warming off as a crock of shit, but if you are interested in the topic you should at least hear both sides of the story.

Especially if most of what you know was learned by watching the Gore propaganda scare tactic flick.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

This is not a "news source."

Check the homepage. It is one of those sites run by an obsessive blowhard.

Why is this page your "source"? You shouldn't trust this kinda shit. If you want a more right perspectives, you got far better places to go.

LaserWolf · June 2006

Front Page Cover Story Canada United States The World
Media Europe Terrorism United Nations Toronto News
Land Issues Religion Science Atlantic Canada Environment
Cruises Tourism Restaurants Films Car Reviews
Sports Cartoons Health Pets Gardening
Archives Business Links Technology Optimization

Web Canadafreepress.com

Guest Column
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts[/b] actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University[/b], in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

I am sure Bob Carter is a super nice smart guy. He is not a climatologist. He has a bachelors in geology and a PhD in paleontology. So much for experts. Here is the bio from his web site:
Bob Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist of more than thirty years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999. Bob has wide experience in management and research administration, including service as Chair of the Earth Sciences Discipline Panel of the Australian Research Council, Chair of the national Marine Science and Technologies Committee, Director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program, and Co-Chief Scientist on ODP Leg 181 (Southwest Pacific Gateways).

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball[/b]. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

Wow a climatologist!

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts[/b].

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change.[/b] In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Actually scientist "who use real data" are what the climate impact experts who study poison ivy, polar bears and insects are. I agree we should listen to them to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson[/b] testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

A dramatic statement from someone who uses ancient data to study what happened 450 million years ago but does not study current climate conditions. I'm afraid even among doubters he will have a hard time finding climatologist who agree with his theory that increased Co2s lead to global cooling.

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology[/b], University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Apparently marine geologist know more about climate than climatologist. Here is his education bio: Helsinki University, M.Sc, Ph.D. in geology
Majors in: hardrock geology, mineralogy and surficial geology
Minors in: geophysics, mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy
Masters thesis (1965) on Fe-Mn-concretions in the northern Baltic Sea;
UNESCO fellowship in marine geology (1966);
Doctorate thesis (1972) on marine geology, sediments and bedrock of
the Bothnian Sea, northern Baltic Sea.

Seems like a smart guy.

Dr. Wibj??rn Karl??n, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden,[/b] admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

My oh my, another geologist. I am so glad we are hearing from all the climatologist who think global warming isn't happening.

But Karl??n clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off . As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karl??n concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karl??n explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karl??n

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

This guy makes a lot of convincing points about the use of data. He might even be a climatologist, I'm not sure.

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." [/b]

Ok we have to call bullshit here. This statement convinces me that Carter is completely disingenuous. Why would scientists feel they were unable to state what they know publicly? Stating what they know is what scientist do. Since the administration in power is desperately seeking scientist who disagree with the Presidential Scientific Advisory Board (what ever their title is) I don't see why they are so scared. Exxon has big dollars for them if what they know is what Carter seems to think he knows.

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

Tom Harris is mechanical engineer[/b] and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company. He can be reached at [email]letters@canadafreepress.com[/email]

Northeast Intelligence Network
is a leading anti-terrorist web site, that offers practical reference information, vital links, and other valuable information from an investigative perspective in today's troubled times.

Like I say a very interesting article. Just the thing the press likes the other side of a scientific issue where there is already wide spread agreement. Like creation the press gets a thrill out of pretending there is a big debate when in reality there is almost universal agreement.

All of the geologist and other "experts" above are consultants. Who they currently consulting for we do not know.

sabadabada · June 2006

every scripture needs its armegedon.

LaserWolf · June 2006

every scripture needs its armegedon.

paulnice · June 2006

Before I tear that article to shreads let's agree on the simple facts.

Global warming is real.

Co2s impact global warming.

Fossil fuels add to the Co2s in the atmosphere.

Predictions of how fast global warming is and will occur are predictions.

Predictions on the effect of global warming are predictions.

"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."

Junk science?

Rockadelic · June 2006

Before I tear that article to shreads let's agree on the simple facts.

Global warming is real.

Co2s impact global warming.

Fossil fuels add to the Co2s in the atmosphere.

Predictions of how fast global warming is and will occur are predictions.

Predictions on the effect of global warming are predictions.

Can we also agree that.....

The phenomena of Global Warming existed long before man burned fossil fuels.

Global Warming has had devastating effects on the earth numerous times.

The long term climate of the earth is cyclical.

Al Gore's film is nothing more than speculation and should be viewed in the same light as flicks like "Day After Tomorrow" instead of the factual documentary that some folks are treating it as.

and...

Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - an unbiased, scientific study seems like a reasonable request.

lucero · June 2006

Rock, you're not really making a compelling case here - I haven't seen Gore's flick, and while I am aware there are multiple nuances and implications therein, I wouldn't venture that it was mere speculation. Your skeptism was shared by many, albeit 10 odd years ago. The scientific understanding of climate change - which is a more accurate term than global warming - has improved markedly in recent years, and is expected to improve further in coming years.

This improved understanding is behind the policy shift of governments around the world to investigate and take actions which will help reduce the imprint of human activities on the planet.

The points you posit above may well be true, but what is different now is that some 6 billion people now inhabit this planet. Much like places such as New York and Florida, many cities around the world have developed around coastal areas. In some parts of the world, such as Shangahi, the land on which these cities is built is very low lying, meaning they are likely to be completely submerged. nations such as the Kiribati???s - which as an american you may not be familiar with - already have agreements with other nations for the relocation of their people when sea levels begin to submerge their island homes. It has been estimated that up to 150 million people may have to be relocated as a result of rising sea levels. Couple in to this the loss of low lying agricultural lands and the likely explosion in diseases such as malaria due to the greater prevalence of newly created swamps and you have some major problems which need addressing.

For a more indepth analysis of these, you might like to consider a report called 'Heating up the Planet: Climate Change and Security' which was released here in Australia, by an independent think tank, yesterday. You can download it here: http://www.lowyinstitute.org/

Finally, I'd be interested in hearing your own take on the challenges which may arise for the global commuity as a result of climate change as you haven't really acknowledged or identified any in this thread so far.

Community

Al Gore Vs. Science (The Other Side Of The Story)

Comments