I'm pretty sure that anytime a statement as absurd as ..... "I cosigningly agree with Rock's assessment" [/b] ...... turns up in a thread it's a good indicator that the thread is a pile of shit.
Regardless of whether you believe Al Gore or not ask yourself this question....
Does Al Gore himself believe the Global Warming horror stories he's been telling for at least 12 years....
And if he does, why does he take fossil fuel mega-burning Limos to his speaking engagements or why did he get a speeding ticket in 2004 driving his rented gas guzzling Lincoln Town Car???
Armand Hammer was one of his biggest campaign supporters(Occidental Petroleum) when he was still alive.
Gore continued to accept and cash checks from his family's Tobacco Farms years after his own sister died of lung cancer and he became an outspoken opponent to the Cigarette Industry.
Let's seperate the messenger from the equation:
Dozens of the planet's top scientists are telling us the earth is the hottest it's been in recorded history and we as humans are a part of the problem. Now why don't we do something about it instead of slinging bullshit like this before our kids, and our kid's kids inherit the mess we've made.
"Fair enough...so in Gore's 8 years as VP what was his biggest policy accomplishment in regards to Global Warming??
As he explained in the movie, even though temperature increases have been steady in the past five decades, its only in the last four years[/b] the Arctic, Antarctic, and Greenland have begun to collapse melting at a rate beyond the most doomerist predictions when Gore was VP. Top that just recently scientists learned all the ice ages before took less than ten years to cover Europe and North America under glaciers.
Dozens of the planet's top scientists are telling us the earth is the hottest it's been in recorded history and we as humans are a part of the problem. Now why don't we do something about it instead of slinging bullshit like this before our kids, and our kid's kids inherit the mess we've made.
Because I'm old enough to remember "dozens of the planet's top scientists" telling us that another Ice Age was imminent and the hysteria which was built around that BS was uncannily similar to this whole global warming ordeal, yet no one seems to either remember or wants to talk about that. (somewhere around here I still have the Time magazine "coming Ice Age" cover story) And, because, as far as I'm concerned, NO ONE has enough information/data on this yet that convinces me one way or the other. Sorry. That's not to say that more research shouldn't be done or changes in our lives shouldn't be made. But if you simply question or try and debate the effects of global warming, forget about it... advocates have a tendency to go crazy on your ass (and I say this with plenty of 1st hand experience). I've even been called a fascist once because I dared to question what apparently is the unquestionable, or worse, a Bush supporter. No doubt there exists a sizable contingent in the scientific community who are just electing to keep their mouths shut on the issue for fear of such a reaction. And unlike myself, who would at the worst, wind up in a bar fight, these guys and gals actually have to worry about their careers. I'd like to hear from them too. But until the day comes when the effects of global warming are actually debated and not trumpeted as absolute "TRUTH" one way or the other, that probably ain't gonna happen.
"Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book."
dude - I understand you're a Bush supporter, but come on - you're not even a little concerned about the environment? Are you one of those people that just follows every point of view the consesus of your particular political party believes?
i think the point was the initial post said "are you really going to argue with a hundred scientists", which is BS because we're really only talking about 19.
as far as I'm concerned, NO ONE has enough information/data on this yet that convinces me one way or the other. Sorry. That's not to say that more research shouldn't be done or changes in our lives shouldn't be made.
Classic right wing dodge, i assume you've done some serious research on the subject, above and beyond that of the worldwide scientific community. Something way beyond a gut feeling that liberals are probably wrong.
But until the day comes when the effects of global warming are actually debated and not trumpeted as absolute "TRUTH"
So you wanna debate the effects of global warming by pointing out what a hipocrit Al Gore is for flying to his engagements. Talk about shooting the messenger, not that I dont expect charecter assasination as the number one GOP debating tool. Why dont you talk about the question, why does Al Gore's choice of transportation have anything to do with a discussion about global warming? I love how Bush and Co duck out of whatever global climate agreements Clinton signed on to, and then republicans turn around and say
No doubt there exists a sizable contingent in the scientific community who are just electing to keep their mouths shut on the issue for fear of such a reaction."
This is standard conservative fare, same as Bill O'Reilly saying, well regardless of polls, most Americans still support the president." Simply deny the motives and conviction of their political opponents, assume its liberals who dont really give a fuck, and let the talking points fly, all while Bush continues to ignore science and wink at his oil buddies. Just keep toeing that party line...
he SHOULD lead by example. Particularly since he so self-righteously tells the rest of us that we all need to make changes
your talking about Al Gore right? the guy who's not president?
Isn't the whole idea that, collectively, we can all make a difference?
This is quite a clever way of letting the powerful corporations and the Republicans who do their bidding off the hook. Kudos!
AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE???S MOVIE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- June 27, 2006 The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled ???Scientists OK Gore???s Movie for Accuracy??? by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP???s bias and methodology.
AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore???s movie ???An Inconvenient Truth.???
In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the ???more than 100 top climate researchers??? they attempted to contact to review ???An Inconvenient Truth.??? AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore ???five stars for accuracy.??? AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore???s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific ???skeptics??? they claim to have contacted.
The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll???s reported links as an ???affiliate??? of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides ???expert testimony??? in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm
The AP also chose to ignore Gore???s reliance on the now-discredited ???hockey stick??? by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990???s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week???s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann???s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe???s statement on the broken ???Hockey Stick.???
Gore???s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there???s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.
Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:
Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore???s film:
"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
"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." ??? Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006
Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:
???A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.??? - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal
Gore???s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.
??????A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.???- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:
??????Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too????- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.
Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore???s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.
"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,??? ???Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.
Because I'm old enough to remember "dozens of the planet's top scientists" telling us that another Ice Age was imminent and the hysteria which was built around that BS was uncannily similar to this whole global warming ordeal, yet no one seems to either remember or wants to talk about that. (somewhere around here I still have the Time magazine "coming Ice Age" cover story) And, because, as far as I'm concerned, NO ONE has enough information/data on this yet that convinces me one way or the other. Sorry. That's not to say that more research shouldn't be done or changes in our lives shouldn't be made. But if you simply question or try and debate the effects of global warming, forget about it... advocates have a tendency to go crazy on your ass (and I say this with plenty of 1st hand experience). I've even been called a fascist once because I dared to question what apparently is the unquestionable, or worse, a Bush supporter. No doubt there exists a sizable contingent in the scientific community who are just electing to keep their mouths shut on the issue for fear of such a reaction. And unlike myself, who would at the worst, wind up in a bar fight, these guys and gals actually have to worry about their careers. I'd like to hear from them too. But until the day comes when the effects of global warming are actually debated and not trumpeted as absolute "TRUTH" one way or the other, that probably ain't gonna happen.
Are you really comparing a Time magazine story to the current body of academic research on global warming?
Gore made a note of all this unscientific public relations against global warming. The world's economy depends on ignoring the facts so that's why you'll see a lot of garbage denying current and past events.
Richard S. Lindzen "charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."
I said to myself, where does he find this stuff? Sabadaba, if you want to play games i can find thinly sourced "articles" to prove my point too, and I'll even tell you where I got them. I might even get them from sources more impartial then a republican press release...
BTW, i also think its a classy move for the ranking republican on the environment commitee to, in the welcome screen for its website, explain all the reasons and justifications for not protecting the environment. He's basically saying, anything we do, that we think is good, were really not sure if it is actually helping, so why go out of our way, and waste money so hippies can feel good about themselves.
You guys, always one step ahead...
"As the chairman of the committee, I am committed to continuing the environmental progress we have made over the years. As we proceed, we must use the best science available, consider the costs associated with the policies we institute and constantly remind the bureaucracy that it is here to serve the people of this country - not rule over them. Please feel free to contact me at any time to share your views and opinions."
Are you really comparing a Time magazine story to the current body of academic research on global warming?
No, nice try though. I'm gonna take a guess and say that you were too young to remember the broo-ha-ha that came with the "coming Ace Ice" back in the 70's. It was a HELL of a LOT more than one issue of Time my friend. New media overkill aside, the parallels between the two "academic bod(ies) of research" on both subjects in particular are quite something. Not to mention the-sky-is-falling attitude that prevailed. I think the main difference (and I could be wrong about this) is that today, you come under immediate attack for bringing into question any data which may be used to prove (or disprove) one thing or another. Which, is what I believe, SCIENCE is supposed to be all about, no?
Classic right wing dodge, i assume you've done some serious research on the subject, above and beyond that of the worldwide scientific community. Something way beyond a gut feeling that liberals are probably wrong.
Wow. And they ask why I don't post here more often. I guess it must be a classic left wing assault tactic to simply dismiss me as "right wing" or "conservative" simply because I'm taking into question a group of scientists whose findings are being heralded as the end all truth. I mean fuck, according to Gore, this isn't supposed to be about politics, left or right, yet any kind of dissent and apparently all bets are off. (Sounds just like a conservative to talk about the right to dissent, huh?)
So you wanna debate the effects of global warming by pointing out what a hipocrit Al Gore is for flying to his engagements.
No silly. I'm pointing out that Al Gore is a hypocrite because he is. The debate over global warming is a separate issue altogether. But you already know this. (though apparently it's one that can't be debated without having one's motives questioned - see below)
Talk about shooting the messenger, not that I dont expect charecter assasination as the number one GOP debating tool.
I love how you have the balls to say this - not to mention practically every other thing you have to say in response to my post - and then just two boxes down, you go on to chastise ME for "denying (others) motives and convictions." Why is it that MY motives HAVE to be political on this issue? You're reacting EXACTLY like that asshole I mentioned above who, just because I went against the popular wisdom that the world is on a 10 year irreversible course of doom, I must be a party-line-toeing Neo-Con. But yet I'M the one who's "assuming". Balls.
Why dont you talk about the question, why does Al Gore's choice of transportation have anything to do with a discussion about global warming?
I've stated why above. Because he's clearly put HIMSELF in the middle of that conversation while silmultaneously acting like a fucking pompous and self-righteous hypocrite by NOT flying commercially WHEN HE'S TELLING THE REST OF US HOW TO LIVE!!! We can still have a discussion about global warming (or maybe not!) but Gore is being a hypocrite and that's painfully obvious to even the most casual observer. You know the more I read your post, I think it becomes clear that you don't really want a "discussion" about global warming. You'd rather just dismiss me as being politically motivated, merely because I say we need more information and state the obvious about Gore.
This is standard conservative fare, same as Bill O'Reilly saying, well regardless of polls, most Americans still support the president." Simply deny the motives and conviction of their political opponents, assume its liberals who dont really give a fuck, and let the talking points fly, all while Bush continues to ignore science and wink at his oil buddies. Just keep toeing that party line...
What the hell are you talking about? So you're going to tell me that the vast majority of scientists in this country are all in lock step on this issue??! Let me be very clear about this... I have no doubt that there are millions of people in this country whose motives and convictions are pure on this matter. I also firmly believe that millions of people in this country are quick to believe in something and often without question - particularly when there's an emotional element to the story (sound familiar?) - such as the very preservation of the planet and life itself.
And I also think your post leaves absolutely no doubt as to who is the one between us that's "toeing the party line".
your talking about Al Gore right? the guy who's not president?
Yeah. I'm talking about Al Gore... the guy who made a FUCKING MOVIE about the subject, touted as undisputed "TRUTH" - and is the man currently in the middle of this whole debate (not to mention this very TOPIC)!!!!
Isn't the whole idea that, collectively, we can all make a difference?
This is quite a clever way of letting the powerful corporations and the Republicans who do their bidding off the hook. Kudos!
This is getting boring.
Uh.... no. That was actually something Al Gore says in his film.
So you're going to tell me that the vast majority of scientists in this country are all in lock step on this issue??!
Yes the vast majority of scientists in this country and in the rest of the world believe that global climate change is real and that humans contribute to it by burning fossil fuels. Only politicians and industry scientist and the gullible have said otherwise.
Saba give it a rest. This is a rewrite of the article that Rocka posted that I fully debunked last week. I thought you guys went back to your cave after that but you are still here.
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 actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, 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. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
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. 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 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, 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.
Dr. Wibj??rn Karl??n, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, 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."
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."
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."
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 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.
Yes the vast majority of scientists in this country and in the rest of the world believe that global climate change is real and that humans contribute to it by burning fossil fuels.
Bullshit. Global climate change is certainly real and yes, I think it's safe to say that most in the scientific community are in general agreement with that - but to WHAT DEGREE we as humans contribute to it and to WHAT EFFECT that may or may not ultimately have on this planet is up for WIDE DEBATE.
Yes the vast majority of scientists in this country and in the rest of the world believe that global climate change is real and that humans contribute to it by burning fossil fuels.
Bullshit. Global climate change is certainly real and yes, I think it's safe to say that most in the scientific community are in general agreement with that - but to WHAT DEGREE we as humans contribute to it and to WHAT EFFECT that may or may not ultimately have on this planet is up for WIDE DEBATE.
Yes what effect it will[/b] have is still being studied and debated. To what degree human contributions will have can not be easily quantified. That we can lessen our impact is not a point of debate.
Now that we have agreed that climate change is real and that humans contribute, the next question is what should we do? Attack Al Gore? Or should we make policy changes that will lessen our impact on global climate change?
Now that we have agreed that climate change is real and that humans contribute, the next question is what should we do? Attack Al Gore? Or should we make policy changes that will lessen our impact on global climate change?
Woah... hold up. Firstly, I didn't "agree" that "humans contribute". I said to what degree we contribute is widely debated. In other words, meaning, if at ALL. I am personally of the opinion that we are incredibly insignifigant in the grand scheme of things (another typical, god-fearing, right wing point of view no doubt) and have yet to be shown ANY proof that we are directly responsible for causing any detrimental changes to our climate. For every claim or "finding" which purports the end of the world as a result of humans fucking up, there's another that refutes it. That just simply does not constitute cut and dry to me. And Al Gore having a movie out - albeit an extremely Moore-esque, factually dubious one - doesn't change that. If anything, it's only cemented my skepticism. Sorry. I understand that is not a popular view to have, but it's how I feel and will continue to feel until I can be convinced otherwise.
That we can lessen our impact is not a point of debate.
Sure it is. Seeing as how the verdict is not yet in on whether or not "our impact" has a direct relevance to climate change, then I'd say that it's still very much a point of debate. Very much so.
Also, Al Gore deserves to be called out for being a hypocrite. He also deserves to be called out on several fallacies he states as fact in his film and have which since been debunked. Lastly, I am all for "policy changes", provided they are sensible and meaningful (unlike several aspects of certain nationwide recycling policies, which often tend to waste more resources than they save). Ultimately, as cliched as it sounds, everything starts with us as individuals, and how we decide to live our lives.
I mean fuck, according to Gore, this isn't supposed to be about politics, left or right
I'm pointing out that Al Gore is a hypocrite because he is. The debate over global warming is a separate issue altogether. put HIMSELF in the middle of that conversation while silmultaneously acting like a fucking pompous and self-righteous hypocrite by NOT flying commercially WHEN HE'S TELLING THE REST OF US HOW TO LIVE!!!
Yeah. I'm talking about Al Gore... the guy who made a FUCKING MOVIE
You'd rather just dismiss me as being politically motivated
Gore is being a hypocrite and that's painfully obvious to even the most casual observer.
I think it becomes clear that you don't really want a "discussion" about global warming.
leaves absolutely no doubt as to who is the one between us that's "toeing the party line".
So basically, your standing by your convictions that, (a) Al Gore sucks, and (b) lets wait, until we can be absolutely sure were fucking up the planet before we do anything about it...
So basically, your standing by your convictions that, (a) Al Gore sucks, and (b) lets wait, until we can be absolutely sure were fucking up the planet before we do anything about it...
Dag. After all I wrote, I'd figure you'd come with it a little more than THAT!
So let's see...
(a) Al Gore sucks ..... Check.
(b) lets wait, until we can be absolutely sure were fucking up the planet before we do anything about it...
You make it obvious not only from what you write, but by what you selectively quote from me that you're seeing this through a very narrow lens. I have made it abundantly clear on several occasions that yes, there are plenty of things we can do to make the world a better place to live for us and our children... starting with ourselves. And that yes, I am all in favor of policy changes as long as they are sensible and well thought out, which is often NOT the case when dealing with issues that tend to affect people emotionally... such as this.
And not for nothing, but Kyoto was fucked from the jump for the simple fact that it intentionally did NOT hold other countries with far greater records of environmental abuses (China for one) to the same standards that we were supposed to adhere to. Change that and I'm all for it.
What I'm getting from this thread is that the environment doesn't really matter, nor do scientific ideas about whether global warming is real or not, and its effects, causes, etc. The REAL issue here is whether people like Al Gore or not.[/b]
Here's what I think. We can do better than burning fossil fuels at this point in time. There are hundreds of logical, non world ending reasons why. The government is the only place real change in energy can be started. They need to cut ties with oil companies and take on risky investments. Personally, my main beef is that these world economy changing investments are not being made. I support anyone that advocates these changes in energy policy, despite shortcomings in other aspects of their lives. Paul I really wish you'd jump into political discussions more often. Apocalypse aside, isn't the idea of walking down the street and simply breathing better air (some of it even smells like french fries I'm told) worth this investment? What I am getting from the antiGore movie camp is no. I don't understand or like that opinion. But I have a feeling this simply comes down to people not liking statistics being manipulated. Perspective is a motherfucker.
Ohh yeah, and I believe Gore saw Cheney shapeshift, which lead to his mission to destroy big oil.
But I have a feeling this simply comes down to people not liking statistics being manipulated.
well...yeah. I mean I can't speak for others, but personally that's a big issue for me. I'm not saying global warming isn't real or that we shouldn't be doing a lot of things to try to better the world we live in, I just can't stand when people see some movie and just completely, 100% buy into what it's selling without even taking the time to, oh I dunno, READ and get the whole story. Also when people say shit like "100 scientists agree!" when the article clearly states we're talking about 19. To me that means you either didn't read what you linked to, which is , or you're just trying to manipulate/scare people, which is also .
not to mention the fact that the term "scientist" is an incredibly vague label, and it seems to be thrown about pretty wantonly with very little clarification...on both sides.
Comments
I'm pretty sure that anytime a statement as absurd as ..... "I cosigningly agree with Rock's assessment" [/b] ...... turns up in a thread it's a good indicator that the thread is a pile of shit.
Let's seperate the messenger from the equation:
Dozens of the planet's top scientists are telling us the earth is the hottest it's been in recorded history and we as humans are a part of the problem. Now why don't we do something about it instead of slinging bullshit like this before our kids, and our kid's kids inherit the mess we've made.
I am ashamed to be a part of this
As he explained in the movie, even though temperature increases have been steady in the past five decades, its only in the last four years[/b] the Arctic, Antarctic, and Greenland have begun to collapse melting at a rate beyond the most doomerist predictions when Gore was VP. Top that just recently scientists learned all the ice ages before took less than ten years to cover Europe and North America under glaciers.
Here's Gore's interview:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3412657607654281729&q=tvshow%3ACharlie_Rose
Rose: If corn ethanol is cost prohibitive what's our solution?
Gore: cellulite ethanol from starch...
Rose: why aren't we using it yet?
Gore: the technology doesn't work yet...
HA HA HA
Gore mentioned peak oil twice! We're officially on our way to global economic crash. I say buy records while we can still listen to them.
doom post of the day,
Tenyu
Because I'm old enough to remember "dozens of the planet's top scientists" telling us that another Ice Age was imminent and the hysteria which was built around that BS was uncannily similar to this whole global warming ordeal, yet no one seems to either remember or wants to talk about that.
(somewhere around here I still have the Time magazine "coming Ice Age" cover story)
And, because, as far as I'm concerned, NO ONE has enough information/data on this yet that convinces me one way or the other. Sorry.
That's not to say that more research shouldn't be done or changes in our lives shouldn't be made.
But if you simply question or try and debate the effects of global warming, forget about it... advocates have a tendency to go crazy on your ass (and I say this with plenty of 1st hand experience).
I've even been called a fascist once because I dared to question what apparently is the unquestionable, or worse, a Bush supporter.
No doubt there exists a sizable contingent in the scientific community who are just electing to keep their mouths shut on the issue for fear of such a reaction.
And unlike myself, who would at the worst, wind up in a bar fight, these guys and gals actually have to worry about their careers. I'd like to hear from them too.
But until the day comes when the effects of global warming are actually debated and not trumpeted as absolute "TRUTH" one way or the other, that probably ain't gonna happen.
since we are all surely going to die in the forseeable future, feel free to send me all your records. PM me for my address. Thanks!
i think the point was the initial post said "are you really going to argue with a hundred scientists", which is BS because we're really only talking about 19.
Classic right wing dodge, i assume you've done some serious research on the subject, above and beyond that of the worldwide scientific community. Something way beyond a gut feeling that liberals are probably wrong.
So you wanna debate the effects of global warming by pointing out what a hipocrit Al Gore is for flying to his engagements. Talk about shooting the messenger, not that I dont expect charecter assasination as the number one GOP debating tool. Why dont you talk about the question, why does Al Gore's choice of transportation have anything to do with a discussion about global warming? I love how Bush and Co duck out of whatever global climate agreements Clinton signed on to, and then republicans turn around and say
This is standard conservative fare, same as Bill O'Reilly saying, well regardless of polls, most Americans still support the president." Simply deny the motives and conviction of their political opponents, assume its liberals who dont really give a fuck, and let the talking points fly, all while Bush continues to ignore science and wink at his oil buddies. Just keep toeing that party line...
your talking about Al Gore right? the guy who's not president?
This is quite a clever way of letting the powerful corporations and the Republicans who do their bidding off the hook. Kudos!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 27, 2006
The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled ???Scientists OK Gore???s Movie for Accuracy??? by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP???s bias and methodology.
AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore???s movie ???An Inconvenient Truth.???
In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the ???more than 100 top climate researchers??? they attempted to contact to review ???An Inconvenient Truth.??? AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore ???five stars for accuracy.??? AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore???s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific ???skeptics??? they claim to have contacted.
The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll???s reported links as an ???affiliate??? of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides ???expert testimony??? in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm
The AP also chose to ignore Gore???s reliance on the now-discredited ???hockey stick??? by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990???s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week???s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann???s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe???s statement on the broken ???Hockey Stick.???
Gore???s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there???s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.
Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:
Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore???s film:
"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
"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." ??? Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006
Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:
???A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.??? - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal
Gore???s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.
??????A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.???- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:
??????Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too????- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.
Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore???s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.
"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,??? ???Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.
Are you really comparing a Time magazine story to the current body of academic research on global warming?
Gore made a note of all this unscientific public relations against global warming. The world's economy depends on ignoring the facts so that's why you'll see a lot of garbage denying current and past events.
You can read about Bob Carter here:
http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/
cheers,
Tenyu
I said to myself, where does he find this stuff? Sabadaba, if you want to play games i can find thinly sourced "articles" to prove my point too, and I'll even tell you where I got them. I might even get them from sources more impartial then a republican press release...
You guys, always one step ahead...
"As the chairman of the committee, I am committed to continuing the environmental progress we have made over the years. As we proceed, we must use the best science available, consider the costs associated with the policies we institute and constantly remind the bureaucracy that it is here to serve the people of this country - not rule over them. Please feel free to contact me at any time to share your views and opinions."
No, nice try though.
I'm gonna take a guess and say that you were too young to remember the broo-ha-ha that came with the "coming Ace Ice" back in the 70's.
It was a HELL of a LOT more than one issue of Time my friend.
New media overkill aside, the parallels between the two "academic bod(ies) of research" on both subjects in particular are quite something.
Not to mention the-sky-is-falling attitude that prevailed.
I think the main difference (and I could be wrong about this) is that today, you come under immediate attack for bringing into question any data which may be used to prove (or disprove) one thing or another.
Which, is what I believe, SCIENCE is supposed to be all about, no?
Wow.
And they ask why I don't post here more often.
I guess it must be a classic left wing assault tactic to simply dismiss me as "right wing" or "conservative" simply because I'm taking into question a group of scientists whose findings are being heralded as the end all truth.
I mean fuck, according to Gore, this isn't supposed to be about politics, left or right, yet any kind of dissent and apparently all bets are off.
(Sounds just like a conservative to talk about the right to dissent, huh?)
No silly. I'm pointing out that Al Gore is a hypocrite because he is.
The debate over global warming is a separate issue altogether. But you already know this.
(though apparently it's one that can't be debated without having one's motives questioned - see below)
I love how you have the balls to say this - not to mention practically every other thing you have to say in response to my post - and then just two boxes down, you go on to chastise ME for "denying (others) motives and convictions."
Why is it that MY motives HAVE to be political on this issue? You're reacting EXACTLY like that asshole I mentioned above who, just because I went against the popular wisdom that the world is on a 10 year irreversible course of doom, I must be a party-line-toeing Neo-Con.
But yet I'M the one who's "assuming".
Balls.
I've stated why above. Because he's clearly put HIMSELF in the middle of that conversation while silmultaneously acting like a fucking pompous and self-righteous hypocrite by NOT flying commercially WHEN HE'S TELLING THE REST OF US HOW TO LIVE!!!
We can still have a discussion about global warming (or maybe not!) but Gore is being a hypocrite and that's painfully obvious to even the most casual observer.
You know the more I read your post, I think it becomes clear that you don't really want a "discussion" about global warming.
You'd rather just dismiss me as being politically motivated, merely because I say we need more information and state the obvious about Gore.
What the hell are you talking about?
So you're going to tell me that the vast majority of scientists in this country are all in lock step on this issue??!
Let me be very clear about this...
I have no doubt that there are millions of people in this country whose motives and convictions are pure on this matter.
I also firmly believe that millions of people in this country are quick to believe in something and often without question - particularly when there's an emotional element to the story (sound familiar?) - such as the very preservation of the planet and life itself.
And I also think your post leaves absolutely no doubt as to who is the one between us that's "toeing the party line".
Yeah. I'm talking about Al Gore... the guy who made a FUCKING MOVIE about the subject, touted as undisputed "TRUTH" - and is the man currently in the middle of this whole debate (not to mention this very TOPIC)!!!!
Uh.... no. That was actually something Al Gore says in his film.
Sounds like you are talking about the guy I voted for in 2000...
Ralph Nader.
Man, leave poor Ralph alone.
Money never even owned a car in his life, let alone fly in a private jet!
Yes the vast majority of scientists in this country and in the rest of the world believe that global climate change is real and that humans contribute to it by burning fossil fuels. Only politicians and industry scientist and the gullible have said otherwise.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, 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).
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow a climatologist!
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
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. 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.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 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.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Wibj??rn Karl??n, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, 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.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.
Bullshit. Global climate change is certainly real and yes, I think it's safe to say that most in the scientific community are in general agreement with that - but to WHAT DEGREE we as humans contribute to it and to WHAT EFFECT that may or may not ultimately have on this planet is up for WIDE DEBATE.
Yeah, but he is pompous and self righteous
Yes what effect it will[/b] have is still being studied and debated. To what degree human contributions will have can not be easily quantified. That we can lessen our impact is not a point of debate.
Now that we have agreed that climate change is real and that humans contribute, the next question is what should we do? Attack Al Gore? Or should we make policy changes that will lessen our impact on global climate change?
This is where the last thread died.
Woah... hold up.
Firstly, I didn't "agree" that "humans contribute".
I said to what degree we contribute is widely debated. In other words, meaning, if at ALL.
I am personally of the opinion that we are incredibly insignifigant in the grand scheme of things (another typical, god-fearing, right wing point of view no doubt) and have yet to be shown ANY proof that we are directly responsible for causing any detrimental changes to our climate.
For every claim or "finding" which purports the end of the world as a result of humans fucking up, there's another that refutes it.
That just simply does not constitute cut and dry to me.
And Al Gore having a movie out - albeit an extremely Moore-esque, factually dubious one - doesn't change that.
If anything, it's only cemented my skepticism.
Sorry. I understand that is not a popular view to have, but it's how I feel and will continue to feel until I can be convinced otherwise.
Sure it is.
Seeing as how the verdict is not yet in on whether or not "our impact" has a direct relevance to climate change, then I'd say that it's still very much a point of debate. Very much so.
Also, Al Gore deserves to be called out for being a hypocrite.
He also deserves to be called out on several fallacies he states as fact in his film and have which since been debunked.
Lastly, I am all for "policy changes", provided they are sensible and meaningful (unlike several aspects of certain nationwide recycling policies, which often tend to waste more resources than they save).
Ultimately, as cliched as it sounds, everything starts with us as individuals, and how we decide to live our lives.
And yes, that goes for you too Al.
So basically, your standing by your convictions that, (a) Al Gore sucks, and (b) lets wait, until we can be absolutely sure were fucking up the planet before we do anything about it...
Dag. After all I wrote, I'd figure you'd come with it a little more than THAT!
So let's see...
(a) Al Gore sucks ..... Check.
(b) lets wait, until we can be absolutely sure were fucking up the planet before we do anything about it...
You make it obvious not only from what you write, but by what you selectively quote from me that you're seeing this through a very narrow lens.
I have made it abundantly clear on several occasions that yes, there are plenty of things we can do to make the world a better place to live for us and our children... starting with ourselves.
And that yes, I am all in favor of policy changes as long as they are sensible and well thought out, which is often NOT the case when dealing with issues that tend to affect people emotionally... such as this.
And not for nothing, but Kyoto was fucked from the jump for the simple fact that it intentionally did NOT hold other countries with far greater records of environmental abuses (China for one) to the same standards that we were supposed to adhere to.
Change that and I'm all for it.
Here's what I think. We can do better than burning fossil fuels at this point in time. There are hundreds of logical, non world ending reasons why. The government is the only place real change in energy can be started. They need to cut ties with oil companies and take on risky investments. Personally, my main beef is that these world economy changing investments are not being made. I support anyone that advocates these changes in energy policy, despite shortcomings in other aspects of their lives. Paul I really wish you'd jump into political discussions more often. Apocalypse aside, isn't the idea of walking down the street and simply breathing better air (some of it even smells like french fries I'm told) worth this investment? What I am getting from the antiGore movie camp is no. I don't understand or like that opinion. But I have a feeling this simply comes down to people not liking statistics being manipulated. Perspective is a motherfucker.
Ohh yeah, and I believe Gore saw Cheney shapeshift, which lead to his mission to destroy big oil.
well...yeah. I mean I can't speak for others, but personally that's a big issue for me. I'm not saying global warming isn't real or that we shouldn't be doing a lot of things to try to better the world we live in, I just can't stand when people see some movie and just completely, 100% buy into what it's selling without even taking the time to, oh I dunno, READ and get the whole story. Also when people say shit like "100 scientists agree!" when the article clearly states we're talking about 19. To me that means you either didn't read what you linked to, which is
not to mention the fact that the term "scientist" is an incredibly vague label, and it seems to be thrown about pretty wantonly with very little clarification...on both sides.