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


BOB CARTER:OWNED (and then some )





i_am_mine
Oh my God, that came from a Canadian newspaper? Gee-whiz, I guess you have me there.

Except for one thing, you should have just removed Bob Carter's name replaced it with "scientist" or something vague.

Why? Oh well lets see, maybe because on the pay-roll of the worlds largest Oil Company.Exxon-Mobil, but setting that aside, also because this so called scientist is the laughing stock of the scientific community.

Now before I continue along the life and times of Carter, I'd like to correct the notion that Al Gore's movie wasn't recieved well.It was, infact given two thumbs up by scientists ( unless the word 'scientists' explicitly mean 'Bob Carter Only')

Ofcourse, the Associated Press reports:

AP wrote:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie — replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets — mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

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."

Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I took a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right."

The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician explaining an issue," said 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.

One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming. That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view.

"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography.

Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.

While some non-scientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit — such as changing light bulbs — the world could help slow or stop global warming.

As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell asleep. Of course, I was on the edge of my chair."



Now,now, lets not deviate from the topic, we'll get back to the Movie later, I'm having too much fun Carter-bashing...

Carter, my friends, is not just a Professor at An Australian University, something he won't tell you is tjat he's also on the Pay-roll of Exxon-Mobil, which is unsuprisingly not a fact the man likes to Publicize.

But digging up some records he wouldn't like you to see you get the following:


Quote:

Tech Central Science Foundation was formed in late November 2002 (Form 990). The Foundation appears to be a funding arm of the free-market news site, TechCentralStation.com.

ExxonMobil gave the Foundation $95,000 in 2003 for "Climate Change Support." According to Guidestar.org, a nonprofit research tool, the Foundation had 2003 income of $150,000 and $110,903 in assets. The Foundation commissioned a study by Charles River Associates alleging that the costs of the McCain-Lieberman bill of 2003 would be a minimum of $350 annually per household through 2010, rising to $530 per household by 2020, and could rise to as high as $1,300 per year per household. According to Washington Monthly, TCS is published by the DCI Group, "a prominent Washington public affairs firm specializing in P.R., lobbying, and so-called 'Astroturf' organizing, generally on behalf of corporations, GOP politicians, and the occasional Third-World despot." TCS shares office space, staff and ownership with DCI Group. ("Meet the Press" Washington Monthly, December 2003. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.confessore.html) Corporate funders of Tech Central Station include AT&T, Avue Technologies, The Coca-Cola Company, General Motors Corporation, Intel, McDonalds, Merck, Microsoft, Nasdaq, PhRMA, and Qualcomm (Tech Central Station website).



General Motors Corporation,EXXON..Hehehe...YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME, TO ACTUALLY QUOTE FROM THIS GUY AND EXPECT US TO BELIEVE IT.

Its also quite encouraging to note that Prof.Bob Carter has gotten a lot more than just 95 Grand since 2003, I mean after all the mouthwork, I mean hard work he's been doing, ExxonMobil could atleast make the notes a little greener on the otherside.


Ofcourse, my point is only halfway through yet.Not only is Bob Carter a paid puppet of a Fossil Fuel Mega giant, he also, quite simply sucks at what he does.Yes thats right he sucks and gets paid for it too! A little taste of stupidity to prove my point(Carter's statement, and a link to known scientific FACT ):

Carter Says:
urban heat islands contaminate the surface record- SCIENCE SAYS:NO THEY DON'T - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=43

Carter Says:
the “hockey stick” is broken - SCIENCE SAYS:NO IT AINT - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
Carter Says:
Reduced to empiricism, we can only note that for the past several years, global temperatures have been falling,

No they haven’t. Look:



Carter Says:
the IPCC summary does not reflect the body of the report - SCIENCE SAYS YES,IT DOES - http://timlambert.org/2004/03/soundscience/


Man, if only I could get paid for a job I sucked at.

And look out for the next Post, featuring the Scientific Community's ridicule and laughter at Carter.

Stay tuned.
i_am_mine
ALSO:


Bob Carter, according to sourcewatch, is a member of the Institute of Public Affairs, which is a lobby group funded by mining and oil companies including Esso Australia, a subsidiary of Exxon. It appears that either sourcewatch or the source you quote is simply lying. Sourcewatch does give references for its assertions.
Biodiesel
Breakin' it down. Thanks for the killer info. Fascinating how things become so twisted sometimes that critical details like these can be overlooked so easily, then accepted as fact. Then again, has Bob Carter ever published anything that was approved by his peer community? I doubt it. That's probably why he has found himself the lowly laughing stock in his community.
Bikerman
You might want to consider looking at the date of posts before replying to them. This one is 3.5 years old.
Afaceinthematrix
Bikerman wrote:
You might want to consider looking at the date of posts before replying to them. This one is 3.5 years old.


*4.5 years old. Sorry to nitpick but I just had to hehe...
Related topics
Best movie with Jay and Silent Bob?
Federal response to Katrina was faster than Hugo,
Bob Marley, A true legend
Fix for deleting files/directories owned by apache
Did Bob lie?
More front page news NOT on the front page..
Bob Woodruff tours the Google campus
web for bob
Kid next door :owned: by forklift. (Picts)
Deleting apache owned files on private_html
NBA All-Star 2006 tomorrow
Question, fix for deleting file owned by apche
Al Gore = :OWNED: (again)
Toyota in trouble?
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.