FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Al Gore = :OWNED: (again)





S3nd K3ys
The Money quote:

Quote:

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."



And from a Canadian publication, no less

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

Quote:

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."

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.

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?"

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."

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, 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 Karlén 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," Karlén 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."

Karlén 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 Karlén

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."

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.


20 years from now we (and history) will be laughing at Al Gore and the rest of the sky-is-falling global warming nitwits, just as we now chuckle about the nitwits who were telling us 20 years ago that we were on the verge of a new Ice Age.

Quote:
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?"


But but but... GLOBAL WARMING! SUVs! Co2!!!!!!!!!!!



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.


Ok. That's IT!

Everyone stop driving your SUVs on the Sun. You're KILLING THE EARTH! Shocked
mephisto73
Well, Carter and you are a part of a shrinking minority. There is a growing consensus that anthropogenic emissions are causing rising global temperatures - even your house idols Bush and Cheney are starting to adhere to this view...

Sorry.
horseatingweeds
I live in Michigan.
I am looking forward to global warming. Laughing
The Conspirator
S3nd K3ys: You know you can find scientists who will say anything if there name gets mentioned, the vast majority of experts and all but a very, very few in the scientific community believe that rising green house gasses are causing global warming. All the pollution we put out has an effect on the atmosphere causing not only an increase in health problems such as Asama but global warming and global dimming (PBS's Nova: Discoveries in Global Dimming Wikipedia) and can actually lead to a (much to horseatingweeds dismay) mini ice-age by slowing and even stooping the Thermohaline circulation which helps regulate globat tempretures.
Whats worse than your denial of human impact global temperatures is that you don;t even except the possibility that even if we are not the main cause, we are helping increase the global temperatures.
em0o
my chemistry professor was actually the first that brought this to my attention. Everything is blown out of proportion. The climate is always changing regardless of carbon emissions and what not. Gore just unwittingly sped up the timeline as far as the end of the world goes.
A plus is that he is active about the issue, defining and acknowleging that it is a problem and must be dealt with. Another plus, is that he only semi put me to sleep rather than a full coma. I think that it is only because of the aid of the pretty pictures and graphs.
Vrythramax
I honestly don't know who to believe when it comes to the whole global warming, greenhouse effect "threat" Like so many things, I have the sneaking suspicion that it has been blown out of proportion...and I am not a paranoid person or a "conspiracy" nut case. I can't imagine who would stand to profit from all this confusion that is being generated...but it's almost certain someone is.

This much I do know for a fact....I was laughing at Al Gore when he was in office, and I'm still laughing at him now.

I don't know which is worse....the fact that people still listen to him because they believe he knows what he's talking about, or simply because he is a high profile person who has the "air of credibility" (no pun intended).
dacopenhagen
haha global warming is happening, but oh it's not human based as far as we can tell
The Conspirator
Quote:
it's not human based as far as we can tell

Well almost every scientists says we are the cause and even if we are not the primary cause, we are helping and or accelerating it.
S3nd K3ys
The Conspirator wrote:
Quote:
it's not human based as far as we can tell

Well almost every scientists says we are the cause


Um. No.

They do not.

The scientists funded by entities who want to hear that Global Warming is caused by humans are saying yes. Others are saying no or negligable.

Again, humans are causing some carbon dioxide, but it's very little compared to most other sources.
Biodiesel
I say better safe than retarded.
S3nd K3ys
Biodiesel wrote:
I say better safe than retarded.


I say better informed than ignorant Wink


:edit:
BTW, before you go off half-cocked and one-third informed, do a little reading so as not to make a fool of yourself...

http://www.frihost.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=345770&highlight=#345770

S3nd K3ys wrote:

Again, before you get all butt-hurt and say i don't care about the earth, keep in mind I run a very effecient house including solar electricity/heated water, a well, double-pain glass etc etc etc, with a diesel truck I am going to convert to run on veggie oil, and burn clean, re-usable pellets to warm my house.


:/edit:
The Philosopher Princess
When I realized an article I was going to post at “Are politicians good sources for science? (Greenhouse Myth)” was already in the first post above, I “sent” readers here, if they cared. Now I’m letting readers here know that a relevant article for both Frihost topics is mentioned over there: “Gorey Truths -- 25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore”.
HoboPelican
"The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth,"
Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy."

I find the info in this story much more convincing. The really sad part is this line. "President Bush said he won't see it." This guy just revels in his own ignorance, doesnt he?

Quote:
The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."

Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. "After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."


<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060628/ap_on_sc/gore_s_science_3>

[EDIT: The Philosopher Princess added the url codes.]
The Philosopher Princess
HoboPelican wrote:
"The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth,"
Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy."

I find the info in this story much more convincing.

Why is this “more convincing” for you, when:
~~~~~~~~~~
(1)
the article wrote:
But those who have seen it had the same general impression

Only general impressions of favorable general impressions were given, rather than anything even close to scientific.
~~~~~~~~~~
(2) The science that was touched on in the article was unfavorable.
~~~~~~~~~~
(3)
the article wrote:
Most scientists had not seen the movie

Then what’s the point?

Does stating that.....

the article wrote:
The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers

.....help convince you, even though 81 of the 100 had not seen the movie?
S3nd K3ys
The Philosopher Princess wrote:

..... even though 81 of the 100 had not seen the movie?


If a movie is a sham and a waste of time, it's a sham and a waste of time. There's no need to see it when you know what it's about.

Take F9/11 for example. Or that 'gun' movie the big fat American hating slob did. (Bowels for Columbia or what ever it was).

We all knew they were a farse. So there's not much sense in going, unless you like fiction.

BTW, didn't Al Gore invent the Internet? Laughing Laughing Laughing
The Philosopher Princess
S3nd K3ys wrote:
If a movie is a sham and a waste of time, it's a sham and a waste of time. There's no need to see it when you know what it's about.

Yes, but people like HoboPelican are apparently convinced by “top climate scientists” who haven’t seen the movie. My point (obviously) was not go see the movie, but don’t be convinced by those who are haven’t seen it but whose non-opinions are offered as (indirect) evidence that the movie is correct.
S3nd K3ys
Convinced of what?

That the movie was bad? Or that the movie is disputed concerning it's so-called 'factual' content (or lack-thereof) of the real climate situation's cause and effect?

I haven't seen the movie, but I heard it was Gore blathering on about things that are hotly disputed by independant and dependant scientests all over the world. I don't feel I need to see it to make a judgement about it's factual content, just as I didn't to know the make a judgement of the factual content of F9/11 and/or Bowels for Columbia.

I ain't saying, I'm just saying. Wink
HoboPelican
Yep, and everyone (of the environmentalists polled) who did see it agreed with the info. Now you may not like it, but that makes for a pretty convincing statement. If nothing else you should be able to admit that the movie has some validity and not continue your ranting of it's being completely inaccurate.

But I don't expect you to back down. You have your believes and thats cool. Only time will tell if you are right or wrong.
S3nd K3ys
HoboPelican wrote:
Yep, and everyone (of the environmentalists polled) who did see it agreed with the info.


I didn't see that poll. Care to share?
HoboPelican
S3nd K3ys wrote:
HoboPelican wrote:
Yep, and everyone (of the environmentalists polled) who did see it agreed with the info.


I didn't see that poll. Care to share?


Did already. It's in the article. 100 polled, all 19 who saw it agreed. I know there are lots who havent seen it and that could be because they disagree to start ( a possible skew) or the fact that it has a limited release. I can't even see it in my city and we have a number of universities here.
S3nd K3ys
HoboPelican wrote:


Did already. It's in the article..


Embarassed Embarassed Embarassed
HoboPelican
S3nd K3ys wrote:
HoboPelican wrote:


Did already. It's in the article..


Embarassed Embarassed Embarassed


LOL. No embarassment, bro. I miss all kinda of stuff if its not layed out in a table Laughing Laughing
The Philosopher Princess
S3nd K3ys wrote:
HoboPelican wrote:
Did already. It's in the article..

Embarassed Embarassed Embarassed

S3nd K3ys, you’re slacking Wink. Why do you accept that as a valid answer?

An environmentalist is not the same thing as a top climate scientist. (Source.)

Quote:
An environmentalist is a person who supports any goal of the environmental movement

This is the opposite of a scientist. A real scientist has a goal of the truth, whatever it happens to be. Someone who supports a movement’s goals, by definition, is not being a scientist per se, because they have the goals even if they aren’t based on truth.

So, when the discussion had been about top climate scientists, but this was stated.....

HoboPelican wrote:
Yep, and everyone (of the environmentalists polled)

.....it was very logical to ask where that poll was, because it seemed to be something brand new.

Okay, HoboPelican came back and said he was equating environmentalists with top climate scientists (as misguided as that may be), but you, S3nd K3ys, had no reason to be embarrassed about your previous valid question (but not for the reasons that HoboPelican states).

You, S3nd K3ys, and I have very little in common (given that you actively promote initiation of force against humans and I abhor it), but surely we can agree that environmentalists and scientists are not the same thing, and do not have the same agendas. The key word is “movement”.

It would be nice if HoboPelican would come back and state that he misspoke by using the term environmentalists, but only if that indeed be the truth. I regret that it’s probably too accurate, given that he’s satisfied with what he said is “more convincing”.
alkady
I dont really get this Al Gore thing, It seems that he is the talk of the village and also protrayed as the village idiot.
HoboPelican
The Philosopher Princess wrote:


It would be nice if HoboPelican would come back and state that he misspoke by using the term environmentalists, but only if that indeed be the truth. I regret that it’s probably too accurate, given that he’s satisfied with what he said is “more convincing”.


LOL. Well, If you want to be picky. I added the environmentalist to make it clear that I was referring to the people polled in the article I quoted. Seemed easier that Top climate specialist, the term used in the article. Sorry if that gave you issues. I assume you read the article to see some of the respondents.

William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University

Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment

Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington

Scripps Institution geosciences professor Jeff Severinghaus


All those were in the article, so I'm not sure what else you'd like. And I have to state again that Im not saying they can't be misstaken or have an ulterior motive. But I think their credentials speak well enough of their knowledge that they should be at least taken as seriously as those with opposing opinions. If that is agreed (which I bet it won't be) then to announce that the first article proves Gore is totally off base is ill-thought out.
HoboPelican
Oh, in case, I didn't state it clearly enough. I mis-used "environmentalist". I don't think that changes much in the facts, all the credentials were there to be read.

But my bad Laughing
The Philosopher Princess
HoboPelican wrote:
Oh, in case, I didn't state it clearly enough. I mis-used "environmentalist".

Okay, sincere thanks to you! Smile

HoboPelican wrote:
I don't think that changes much in the facts

On the essential facts, you are correct. But on the discussional meta-facts (as I think you agree), S3nd K3ys’s question was valid. My purpose was to let everyone know it was valid, because he had dropped the ball. I think the meta-facts are important because, if we all are not picky “enough”, then we send people off in wrong directions.

Apparently, if I had not raised the meta-issue, the term environmentalists would have been left for other readers, as if it were valid, but it was not. One thing I’d really hate is for new thinkers to learn to equate those terms.

HoboPelican wrote:
Well, If you want to be picky. I added the environmentalist to make it clear that I was referring to the people polled in the article I quoted. Seemed easier that Top climate specialist, the term used in the article.

Well, frankly, I think everyone needs to be more picky. I mean, after our recent pickiness discussion, you still just wrote “Top climate specialist”, but the word “specialist” does not appear even once in the article.

One of my issues with this whole subject is that some/many people are not being picky enough when it comes to believing politicians and believing media-spin-artists on subjects that people should believe things only when they’ve researched for themselves the actual scientific information. Wishy washy writing and wishy washy thinking about wishy washy articles (including that one and so many more) is just the first indication that wishy washy data is being believed. Of all times that people should be picky, it’s on subjects as important as the world’s environment, and the billions of dollars that governments want to force humans to be subjected to in taxes and regulations -- especially if they have it wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~
HoboPelican wrote:
And I have to state again that Im not saying they can't be misstaken or have an ulterior motive.

Thanks again, for that.

HoboPelican wrote:
But I think their credentials speak well enough of their knowledge that they should be at least taken as seriously as those with opposing opinions. If that is agreed (which I bet it won't be) then to announce that the first article proves Gore is totally off base is ill-thought out.

The credentials seem fine (though I may look into them). But when we get down to the real facts, there is nothing of consequence to take seriously yet. If, and I say if, they have ulterior motives, their so-called knowledge should not be taken seriously.

Because this is such a politically-motivated issue, worldwide, smart people won’t take any of these people (pro or con) (liberal or neo-con) seriously -- because there’s such a huge possibility that ulterior motives are involved in lots of places. How do we know where? We need much more information, but we shouldn’t believe any of these people till we have it. It’d more intellectually honest to say, “I don’t yet have the answer.”
~~~~~~~~~~
One thing very positive is that you and I are not talking completely past each other (as can happen in discussions).
~~~~~~~~~~
I wonder what we can agree on. Do you agree with this one?

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
Because this is such a politically-motivated issue, worldwide, smart people won’t take any of these people (pro or con) (liberal or neo-con) seriously -- because there’s such a huge possibility that ulterior motives are involved in lots of places.

Can we agree that Al Gore is a politician who most assuredly is thinking seriously about the presidency for himself?

Can we agree that Al Gore, thus, needs some kind of major media issue to boost his campaign ahead of his political rivals (and to nullify his reputation as an intellectual lightweight)?

Can we agree that Al Gore’s scary movie, his “scientificalistic” fear book, and the media mania around it will have a good chance of giving him the boost he needs to become a front-runner again -- whether or not it includes much valid science?

Can we agree that Baby Bushwhacker has all kinds of his own wars going on, spreading his own style of fear in the sheeples, and the neo-con politicians will thus have a lot of “cool” scary stuff from which to pick (while rejecting the ones they don’t like) for their own presidential and other political bids?

Can we agree that the liberals know about those scary neo-con issues, so are looking for their own edge on the fearmongering? So, how do you out-terrorize global terrorism? By predicting the end of the planet unless you are the one elected next time! Give the voters the choice of being terrorized by rag-heads, or being fried by global warming. Either is bad, but which is worse? In politics it’s generally the worst-case-scenario that brings out the most votes.
~~~~~~~~~~
In case you haven’t noticed Wink, the two big parties have been playing this game for decades. Each side tries to out-terrorize the other so that the sheeple will become so scared that they actually believe that “the other side” winning will result in the end of the world. Al Gore’s book and movie and “19 out of 100 top climate scientists surveyed” are the Gore campaign’s shot at out-terrorizing the master terrorists. It’s actually very logical, if you think like a politician.

I mean, even IF, IF, IF most of the environmental Gorey gores are true, can we still agree that the politically liberal politicians are going to get a huge boost from this book and movie, and thus GROW their political base?

Can we agree (if looking at the big picture) that you and I, separately, have very little fully-verifiable scientific data as compared to what would be needed to really know the truth and be extremely sure of the full answers to all of this climate stuff?

Can we agree that there’s no reason (yet) to think that any other Frihoster has significantly more knowledge on the actual science than do we? If a top climate scientist shows up at Frihost -- great! -- we’ll grill him or her on the actual science. My message in the mean time is: Be very skeptical of politicians of all spots who are promoting “science”.
~~~~~~~~~~
HoboPelican, I appreciate your coming back on all this very much. So, thanks again. I would seriously like to know which of the above questions you agree with. And maybe you have some you’d like to offer me for possible agreement. And let’s both please be picky and try to be as precise as possible. Smile
HoboPelican
OK, here I go...

The Philosopher Princess wrote:

Apparently, if I had not raised the meta-issue, the term environmentalists would have been left for other readers, as if it were valid, but it was not. One thing I’d really hate is for new thinkers to learn to equate those terms.

Terms ARE important and I bang on definitions a lot in my posts because it often is pointless to argue if you are using different connotations.
Quote:

Well, frankly, I think everyone needs to be more picky. I mean, after our recent pickiness discussion, you still just wrote “Top climate specialist”, but the word “specialist” does not appear even once in the article.

Yeah, I was tired and I should have said scientist, which WAS in the article. But I still think it is a point that only detracts from the point of the post.

Quote:
One of my issues with this whole subject is that some/many people are not being picky enough when it comes to believing politicians and believing media-spin-artists on subjects ...

Good point. I say ignore politicians and look to the scientists/specialists who actually know something. To that point, Forget that Gore was involved and simple look at whether the facts have any validity. It doesn't matter if Greenpeace or Bush puts out a movie, don't slam it (or believe it) because of the source, look at the info.


Quote:
It’d more intellectually honest to say, “I don’t yet have the answer.”

Which goes to my point. I have NOT endorsed either side. What I have said is that bashing the movie is not appropriate because, according to the article I cited, a number of people who DO know something about it agree with the facts in the movie. Not settling the issue, just pointing out that it still is an issue to be decided.
Quote:

I wonder what we can agree on. Do you agree with this one?

For the most part, yes. But again I think its is not relevant to my point. Yes, most people have ulterior motives. Politicians are among the worst. But this thread started, I believe, blasting Gore on being completely erroneous in the facts he presented. There was a citation and that is fine. I presented an opposing article backed by other people who should know. I don't expect anyone to believe it without thought, but I would see it an as good thing for you and S3 to admit that the statement "Al Gore = OWNED: (again)" was a little over the top and that the issue is still not proven either way. Can we agree that nothing has been proven? THAT is my only point


Quote:
HoboPelican, I appreciate your coming back on all this very much. So, thanks again. I would seriously like to know which of the above questions you agree with. And maybe you have some you’d like to offer me for possible agreement. And let’s both please be picky and try to be as precise as possible. Smile


I will try to be picky, but I think one can be picky with the intention of obscuring facts. My only point has been it is still an unproven issue and that a vitriolic post, like the one that started this thread does nothing to advance the public's knowledge and understanding. It just perpetuates a political agenda, which I think you and I both agree is inappropriate in this thread.

So, are you (and S3) up to a single line post that says Gore wasn't owned?
The Philosopher Princess
HoboPelican, I will respond to your very responsive post later. In the mean time, you might take a look at this (what we might call a) professional blog (which was sent to me by a fellow Frishoster. Thanks!).

Quote:
AP GETS CAUGHT ON GLOBAL WARMING

Somebody at the Associated Press named Seth Borenstein, identified as the AP's "science writer," wrote an article stating that scientists have OK'd Al Gore's global warming movie for accuracy. According to Borenstein, the 19 climate scientists he asked agreed Gore got it right. But the headline didn't say '19 climate scientists OK Gore's movie." It just said "scientists," implying...well, pretty much everybody.

But you see...in this day and age, news travels quickly. And somebody was watching the wires...and decided to take on the AP. That somebody turned out to be the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works. They have called into question a number of the AP's "facts" about global warming, including:

The article ignored "scores" (a score is 20, for those of you fresh out of government school) of scientists that have criticized the Gore movie.

The committee also notes that the AP article fails to list all 19 climate scientists sourced for the piece, nor do they disclose the 100 top climate researches mentioned in Borenstein's article.

Gore's movie relies on the "hockey stick" graph that allegedly shows temperatures were stable for 900 years, then spiked in the 20th century. That theory has been completely discredited.

The rebuttal goes on and on. So once again, the AP has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar...this time all the way up to their elbow. What they don't want to admit is that global warming is a theory....and a theory not supported by all scientists. The debate is nowhere near being over.

Remember ... global warming is not an environmental issue. It's a political issue.

There are a couple links there, not coded in here. (I need to check those out myself plus some other leads I have.)

While I earlier seriously questioned why your article was “more convincing” to you, when (among other things).......

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
the article wrote:
Most scientists had not seen the movie

Then what’s the point?

Does stating that.....

the article wrote:
The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers

.....help convince you, even though 81 of the 100 had not seen the movie?

.......this blog was more direct by pointing out in what ways your article’s title (“Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy”) was very misleading.

Are all these misleading things because the AP gave a simple-minded unpicky journalist the assignment, or is this more likely part of the political spinning machine?
HoboPelican
Not very interesting, sorry.

Ignoring more bias issues with the "blog" (why in the heck do we listen to people with less reputation and accountability than newsmen and politicians?), I see 3 main points in it. Firstly, why is it a wrong for the article to not mention 100 people? That is silly to expect. They should be able to produce on request, but the blog only faulted it not being in the article.

Secondly, he says scores of scientist that have criticized the movie. As you should have jumped on yourself, what kind of scientist? Who are they (a "crime" for the AP article not to list their respondents, but OK for him)? What are their motives?

Thirdly, he states without reference that the hockey stick graph theory has been completely discredited. Well, apparently people who should know better than the blogger(quoted in the AP) disagree.


The Philosopher Princess wrote:

Does stating that.....

the article wrote:
The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers

.....help convince you, even though 81 of the 100 had not seen the movie?


.......this blog was more direct by pointing out in what ways your article’s title (“Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy”) was very misleading.

I disagree. The title was absolutley true. No sensible person would interpt that headline to imply ALL scientists agreed, just some. All the pertinent facts were in the article.

Quote:

Are all these misleading things because the AP gave a simple-minded unpicky journalist the assignment, or is this more likely part of the political spinning machine?


Again, sorry, but I see the AP article as balanced. They stated how many were polled, how many responded and how many agreed. They list 3 or 4 of the people polled. I think that is more than your blogger did. What is your issue? Is it that Gore was involved? That it is counter to your beliefs?
I cant see any other issue that we haven't beat to death.

One more time, I put forth that the AP article contains enough info to make the idea of this thread, "Al Gore = :OWNED: (again)", invalid. If you want to debate global warming, it should be in science, not world news.
Billy Hill
Looks like AP & Gore = owned huh?

This is a link to the article that appeared yesterday that they are referring to.
Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy

Quote:
Press release from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works

Majority Press Release
Contact: MARC MORANO (marc_morano@epw.senate.gov) 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY (matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov) 202-224-9797

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.” (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 )

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.
HoboPelican
Billy Hill wrote:
Looks like AP & Gore = owned huh?

This is a link to the article that appeared yesterday that they are referring to.
Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy


Is there anything new in there that hasn't been addressed already? I don't think so. If there is, make a concise post and I'll have a go.

To quote a man who is getting very bored...
Quote:

One more time, I put forth that the AP article contains enough info to make the idea of this thread, "Al Gore = :OWNED: (again)", invalid. If you want to debate global warming, it should be in science, not world news.
The Philosopher Princess
{INTRO}

(To tell you the truth, I hadn’t read this thread till just before I posted recently, but I was well aware of it because I’d done a search for an article I was going to post elsewhere and found it was here already.)

HoboPelican wrote:
So, are you (and S3) up to a single line post that says Gore wasn't owned?

I’m not even sure what that is supposed to mean. But so that I could try to have proper context, I just rebrowsed the thread and don’t see it discussed. The best description seems to be S3nd K3ys's toy-gunned little blue man who apparently was in a fight but can’t afford to have his teeth fixed.

Seriously, I am neither defending nor denying the title of the thread. I don’t see it as being very relevant to the discussions we’ve been having here, but since it matters to you, I’ll give you an answer. You are certainly right that the case doesn’t seem to have been made for Al Gore being “owned”.

{OWNED}

If keeping it simple, owned means to me controlled by [others].

In general, I would say any politician above the local level (and many at that level) have gotten themselves into an unhealthy situation where they are owned by their supporters, campaign donors, special interest groups, and the political machine that promotes them into office. This ownership/control goes both ways, which is why special interests say of a politician “he’s OUR guy!” and the politician says of them, “they’re MY supporters”. They play the political game for power; then they use their political power to control, or own, the rest of us.

Gore is certainly one politically savvy dude who has made deals with all sorts of special interest groups and party bigwigs to get the power he craves. As a major political player, he is owned and owns others, because that’s the nature of the game.

{OWNED RAMIFICATIONS}

Part of being owned is not being free to speak the truth when it goes, or might go, against one’s owners’ goals. That is the unhealthy situation that owned politicians and owning politicians get themselves into, along with the “scientists” and others they drag into the muck.

Take a person with scientific credentials that you and I would agree are great. Then (hypothetically) compare how that same scientist would work and speak publicly when (1) in a privately funded research institution with the goal of science, versus a (2) politically motivated bureaucracy. The same person with the same credentials will feel differently about what they can speak.

The #2 group will recruit from the #1 group -- and while people like you will continue to be impressed with their credentials, you apparently miss the very important switch of loyalties.

{ULTERIOR MOTIVES}

Speaking of “owned”, how about that “scientist”, Michael MacCracken, about whose credentials you are so impressed?

In your article that is so convincing to you, it states he “used to be in charge of the nation's global warming effects program”. It didn’t state who owns him, which administration put him in charge of the global warming bureaucracy, or who got him appointed to such a plush position. Hmmm, bet it wasn’t Reagan or Bush -- maybe FDR!? Do I smell a conflict of interest? At the very least I would suggest your considering MacCracken’s ulterior motives before accepting his viewpoint as valid science.

{OTHERS WHO ARE OWNED}

The people I most care about being “owned” are the sheeples (e.g., voters) who are blindly following politician non-scientists, thus giving mandates to non-science that is nevertheless going to control the rest of us -- thus own the rest of us, and likely make very bad decisions for us against our will and to our detriment.

While you and I agree that S3nd K3ys doesn’t see that Bush is just as bad as Gore, and probably more stupid, he did make a valid point about politicians (Gore in particular) putting their own agendas ahead of valid scientific process (i.e., discovering real truth) and that their results should not be blindly accepted.

So, again, I agree with you that someone could make a case that the topic thread was poorly named (although it is catchy), and that the case was never made (until I did so) that Gore is “owned”.
The Philosopher Princess
HoboPelican wrote:
So, are you (and S3) up to a single line post that says Gore wasn't owned?

Gore is owned and owns -- in the worst possible senses.
HoboPelican
The Philosopher Princess wrote:


Seriously, I am neither defending nor denying the title of the thread. I don’t see it as being very relevant to the discussions we’ve been having here, but since it matters to you, I’ll give you an answer. You are certainly right that the case doesn’t seem to have been made for Al Gore being “owned”.



You can't see that all of my posts have been trying to point out the the subject of this thread has not been proven? That is sad, PP. I think maybe you are too focused on word play at the expense of understanding. But be that as it may, Im glad we can agree on that one thing.

I doubt if S3 is going to come back, so I'm moving on to other threads and dropping this watch. PP, it is always a pleasure to discuss things with someone who makes me scratch my head in thought instead of banging it on the table in frustration. Be seeing you!
simp
To those of you mental midgets who are too retarded to realize that global warming is for real: even if you don't, your children will. They unfortunately won't have the luxury of ignorance and stupidity that you do. Go take a good look at your children. Right now. This minute. Look them in the eye and see in their faces how they believe in you, how they trust you not to hurt them. Now look into the future and see them flopping on the ground liek fish out of water, gasping for breathable air that just isn't their any more, and hear them curse you and your selfishness with their last breath. And remember that as you drive your fat ass to your Republican-pimping church in your ultra-luxury stretch SUV.
S3nd K3ys
Hi hobo, I'm still looking. You know me, stir up the nest then back up out of range. Laughing

simp wrote:
To those of you mental midgets who are too retarded to realize that global warming is for real: even if you don't, your children will. They unfortunately won't have the luxury of ignorance and stupidity that you do. Go take a good look at your children. Right now. This minute. Look them in the eye and see in their faces how they believe in you, how they trust you not to hurt them. Now look into the future and see them flopping on the ground liek fish out of water, gasping for breathable air that just isn't their any more, And remember that as you drive your fat *** to your Republican-pimping church in your ultra-luxury stretch SUV.


by disinformation and absolutely ZERO capacity for mental independance or reasonable thought whatsoever.

"flopping on the ground like a fish out of water"

Laughing Laughing Laughing

"and hear them curse you and your selfishness with their last breath."



simp, or should I call you simple? Wink Even in the HIGHLY UNLIKELY event that MEER HUMANS are responsible for the MILLIONS OF YEARS OF GLOBAL WARMING AND COOLING CYCLES with our puny amounts (compared to NATURAL CAUSES) of Co2 put into the atmosphere, the air isn't going to just 'run out' instantly...


I'd ask you to stay and learn a bit about how the EARTH really works, but I'm sure you've got a Hummer next door to light on fire.
nopaniers
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Even in the HIGHLY UNLIKELY event that MEER HUMANS are responsible for the MILLIONS OF YEARS OF GLOBAL WARMING AND COOLING CYCLES with our puny amounts (compared to NATURAL CAUSES) of Co2 put into the atmosphere, the air isn't going to just 'run out' instantly...


CO2 levels have risen dramatically since the industrial revolution. Here for example is a graph of CO2 over the last 400,000 years (and recent measurements extend this to 600,000 years).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg
Current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere off the scale compared to what it was for the past half a million years and are steadily increasing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2maunaloa2003.png

What reason do you give for this dramatic jump since since industrial revolution if you don't think it's manmade? Has there been some natural process which has been increasing CO2 which didn't happen for the past half a million years? The Royal Society, the National Academy of Science in the US and the IPCC have all given statements that they think the evidence is that the climate change it is man-made.
S3nd K3ys
nopaniers wrote:

CO2 levels have risen dramatically since the industrial revolution. Here for example is a graph of CO2 over the last 400,000 years (and recent measurements extend this to 600,000 years)..


Lets take a look at millions of years, shall we? Seems we're at a reletively LOW point in history as far as levels of Co2 are concerned.



wiki wrote:
Changes in carbon dioxide during the Phanerozoic (the last 542 million years). The recent period is located on the left-hand side of the plot, and it appears that much of the last 550 million years has experienced carbon dioxide concentrations significantly higher than the present day.


Please do continue to tell us, via your own sources, exactally HOW we're responsible for millions of years of high Co2 concentrations...... Wink
Donutey
I thought for a second that was Jimmy Carter, but alas it's an article written just to get people mad, not real journalism.
nopaniers
Doesn't it worry you that we are making changes in a only a few hundred years which compare with the entire living life span of the earth? If you plotted it on your graph, the changes in the past 100 years would look like a vertical line heading straight upwards.

Your timeline goes back an extremely long way, beyond the Cambrian period (which is the period where animal life exploded onto the earth). At that time there was no ozone layer and there was no life on the land. Plants only started growing on land around 440 million years ago (a quarter of the way into your graph). So with volcanic activity driving CO2 up, and plate techtonics very different (America, Europe and Africa had not split) and much less plant life developed to convert the CO2 to oxygen it's not a surprise that 550 million years ago CO2 is higher.

I think your graph serves as a warning to us, considering that the climate was very different millions of years ago, and that large numbers of species have become extinct due to the changes in it. To quote from Dr Paul Pearson talking about his research in published in Nature about the previous 55 million years climate:
Pearson wrote:
"... the sweltering ice-free world of the Eocene does warn us of what might happen if a runaway greenhouse effects sets in."


Why do you think that CO2 is increasing?
S3nd K3ys
nopaniers wrote:
Doesn't it worry you


No. Not as much as people like YOU who take all the BS that those with a clear adjenda are shoving down your throat and accept it as gospel. I'm not denying it. I am, in fact, doing things to help prevent it. But still, you have to deal with the facts. ALL the facts. Rolling Eyes

Here's a small tidbit; Think about the amount of Co2 ONE SINGLE volcanic blast emits. (More than humans have created) Wink
djcaution
All this humanity guilt-trip speak about global warming is rather unneccessary if you ask me. Global warming is simple. It's a process, there's no stopping it and there never was. Here's my theory

Thousands of years ago there was the ice-age. Everything was covered in ice and it was freaking cold. There was no pollution back then that caused the world to get warmer and melt! It's been getting warmer ever since the ice-age! There's no stopping it, it's always been happening, it's a process. Of course humanity has helped speed up this process with all our pollution and whatnot but good luck telling the world to stop polluting... all you can really do is produce technology that is more eco-friendly.

& there you have it folks. whining and guilt-tripping the world for causing our impending doom isnt going to change anything.
nopaniers
It's good that you are doing things to prevent it, because really it's up to us. Nobody else is going to stop it, and if we're going to prevent it, it's going to take a lot of individual efforts like yours.
Quote:
Here's a small tidbit; Think about the amount of Co2 ONE SINGLE volcanic blast emits. (More than humans have created) Wink

But I disagree about the effect that volcanoes have, and maybe you should reference your source, because volcanic emmission are negligible in comparison to human emissions. According to the USGS,
USGS wrote:
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

If you're interested there's a good article of the effect of volcanoes at
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/current-volcanic-activity-and-climate/

Personally, I don't think that catastrophic events like major erruptions are responsible for CO2 rising, because I would expect that CO2 would jump when there were major erruptions... and not rise otherwise, but what we see is that CO2 has steadily been increasing every year. Do you agree?
S3nd K3ys
globalwarming.org wrote:
Arctic warming update

Once again claims are flying thick and fast regarding dramatic, in fact, unprecedented Arctic warming.

Once again, we look at the available data, now updated to the end of 2004.

Once again, we find the claims to be dead flat wrong. Click on the following thumbnails to view the full size images in a new browser window.


http://globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=428 wrote:
Where has all the Carbon Gone?

As environmentalists continue to harp on the evils of carbon dioxide, they may want to notice the lack of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Although carbon dioxide emissions are up almost 40 percent in the past 20 years, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has decreased or remained the same, according to an article in Science (July 6, 2001). The author of the article Steven C. Wofsy with the Atmospheric Sciences Program, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, notes, "The reason for this discrepancy is that increasing amounts of anthropogenic CO2 are being removed by forests and other components of the biosphere."

About 25 percent of carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuels is sequestered according to the Wofsy’s estimates. "But," said Wofsy, "analyses of forest inventories (which measure forest areas and timber volume) seem to indicate that forests sequester much smaller amounts of carbon. Thus we have a mystery: If our forests are sequestering billions of tons of carbon annually, why can’t we find it? Evidently, we have not been looking in the right places."

Right now, scientists are not entirely sure where the extra carbon dioxide is hiding, but they have some thoughts. Many organic materials, such as woody debris, soil, wood products and woody plants, are not reported in forest inventories because they are not economically valuable. All of these things can absorb carbon dioxide. Professor S. Pacala of Princeton University, et al. estimates that more than 75 percent of carbon sequestration takes place in organic matter that is not inventoried (Science, June 22, 2001). Indeed, Pacala et al. estimates that carbon uptake in the U.S. equals 20 to 40 percent of worldwide CO2 emissions.

According to S. Fang et al., the carbon might be holed up in Asia (Science, June 22, 2001). Forests in China have absorbed substantial amounts of carbon dioxide thanks to reforestation and afforestation projects. When China planned its reforestation policy, it was not for carbon sequestration, but to restore ecosystems and produce wood for fuel. Wofsey points out that carbon sequestration will not stop the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but it could significantly slow it.


http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=851 wrote:
- Whether global warming over the past century is unique to the past 1000 years or longer – the IPCC Third Assessment Report conclusion that the warming of the 20th century is unique to at least the past 1000 years was based on a study (by Mann, et al.) that has been shown to be incorrect by three studies recently published in peer-reviewed literature. These studies show that many parts of the world have experienced warmer temperatures at some time during the last 1000 years than they did during the later part on the 20th century.


http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/268.pdf wrote:
The debate over the state of climate science and what it tells us about past and future
climate has been going on for at least 15 years. It is not close to resolution, in spite
of assertions to the contrary. What is often referred to as a “consensus” is anything
but. Many of those making this claim hold a particular point of view that is based on
their “professional judgment” and hypotheses related to that judgment, not established
scientific fact. For others, especially those engaged in advocacy, the claim of consensus
is used to advance their agenda.


There's much more, (yes, from BOTH sides), if you'd care to be more informed and be able to think for yourself with the given information. (I say that because I see too often here people making judgements without having the facts (or figures) from BOTH sides.) I won't go in to how badly these same people screwed up the Global Cooling thing in the 70's... Rolling Eyes

Bottom line: There is NO proof that humans are the main (or even a significant) cause of 'Global Warming'. Yes, humans are a cause. But how significant is our contribution?
nopaniers
You are right to question, and you did well in suggesting a reason other than humans that CO2 should increase. So do you agree that (according to your theory) when there are major erruptions that we should see a big increase in CO2 levels? Why was there no big increase in the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere 1990-1 when Mt Pinatubo errupted?

globalwarming.org is the website of the right wing political organisation, Cooler Heads Coalition, and the articles you cite are from the American Enterprise Institute. They are not scientists, but a politically motivated lobby group who receive funding from large corporations to promote their interests, including from large oil corporations (it receives 9% of it's budget from Exxon-Mobil for example).


http://globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=428 wrote:
Where has all the Carbon Gone?
As environmentalists continue to harp on the evils of carbon dioxide, they may want to notice the lack of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Although carbon dioxide emissions are up almost 40 percent in the past 20 years, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has decreased or remained the same, according to an article in Science (July 6, 2001)."


Which just shows what a dishonest website can try to distort a good scientific article and corresponding study (found in Battle et al., Science, 2000). The study does NOT say that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere stayed the same or decreased. In fact, Figure 1 of the study clearly shows that it is increasing. The article says that the rate of increase has stayed the same or only increased slightly, not the the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, and goes on to explain that this is not a mystery but very well explained by uptake in forrests. They conclude that action needs to be taken to manage forests to take up CO2, warning against doing nothing, or worse getting rid of forrests:

Quote:
Forests cannot miraculously stop an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, but they can significantly mitigate the rate of increase for many decades to come. The opportunities are balanced by the risks of inaction or regressive policies that could promote the release of carbon currently stored in forests, halting or reversing the benefits of forests acting as carbon sinks.



http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=851 wrote:
- Whether global warming over the past century is unique to the past 1000 years or longer – the IPCC Third Assessment Report conclusion that the warming of the 20th century is unique to at least the past 1000 years was based on a study (by Mann, et al.) that has been shown to be incorrect by three studies recently published in peer-reviewed literature.


The particular paper they are referring to recently underwent a rigorous examination by the National Research Council, and concluded that the paper is correct,
NRC wrote:
Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th Century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5109188.stm

In fact, the IPCC finding was based on many different factors, not just one paper. 12 other peer reviewed and published studies (which all find similar behaviour to the Mann paper) are here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7#figures

And a discussion of myths about the hockey stick graph of temperature is found here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

Understandably scientists get upset when their work is misrepresented in the way you showed us from the AEI. Here is one example, where the scientists issued a press release:
http://munews.missouri.edu/NewsBureauSingleNews.cfm?newsid=9842
mephisto73
OMG, you're using proper science trying to convince someone who would rather listen to pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo by some politically mandated website. That's brave, but unfortunately it is in vain. Science never have and never will convince anyone who is determined to believe what they want.

That is not to say science doesn't have problems of its own - it does - but at least science represent the best available knowledge. As such it should always be questioned, but not beyond stupidity.
Related topics
The Unofficial Jokes Thread
Le dernier film que vous avez vu ...
What did Bush lie about?
Urban Legends About the Iraq War
Oh, the evil that Bush has done to this world...
Al Gore and GW
Computer jokes (funny!)
Are politicians good sources for science? (Greenhouse Myth)
Al Gore
Aquecimento Global
Al Gore´s video
Al Gore, Global Warming and The American Healthcare System
Kyoto?? Bah! China Blows by USA in CO2 Emissions.
Real surprise - Al Gore and Tipper separation
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.