NewsBusters reported Tuesday that a British court rendered an opinion concerning Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" citing eleven inaccuracies in the supposedly factual presaging of imminent planetary doom.
As it turns out, the judge, Michael Burton, announced his ruling Wednesday, and he listed only nine key scientific errors in this piece of detritus that should never have been allowed by the Motion Picture Association of America or the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to be marketed as a documentary.
According to the British Telegraph, Burton claimed these "errors had arisen ‘in the context of alarmism and exaggeration' in order to support Mr Gore's thesis on global warming."
Pretty much what climate change skeptics around the world have been claiming since this abomination was first released in 2006, wouldn't you agree?
Here were the nine pertinent errors reported by the Telegraph Thursday:
- Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said: "This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore's "wake-up call". He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia"."The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus."
- The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.
- The documentary speaks of global warming "shutting down the Ocean Conveyor" - the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was "very unlikely" that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.
- Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed "an exact fit". The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts".
- Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change.
- The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that "it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability."
- Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was "insufficient evidence to show that".
- Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice" The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - "but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description".
- Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.
For those interested, here were the two errors listed in the NewsBusters article that the judge ended up not specifically addressing:
- The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
- The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
Maybe even more disgraceful, the New York Times reported the following concerning this matter in its Arts section Thursday without any reference to the film's scientific errors:
British Judge Rejects Ban on Al Gore Film
A British judge has rejected an effort to ban school showings of “An Inconvenient Truth,” the Academy Award-winning documentary, directed by Davis Guggenheim, about Al Gore’s quest to spur action against global warming, Agence France-Presse reported. But the judge ruled that it should be shown only with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination. The decision by High Court Judge Michael Burton was in response to an effort by Stewart Dimmock, a father of two and a member of the fringe New Party, to block the government’s pledge to send DVDs of the film to more than 3,500 secondary schools in England and Wales. Mr. Dimmock contended that the film included “serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush.”
Nice reporting, boys! I guess the Times, and the rest of the American media, don't want to do anything to distract from the praise Gore is about to get once the impending announcement about his Nobel Peace Prize is made.
Certainly wouldn't want to expose the charade, would you ladies and gentlemen of the press?
Of course, potentially even graver than the hypocrisy of a man receiving such an award for producing a film that has now been officially determined to include material falsehoods is the fact that one of these inaccuracies is largely responsible for the public's current anxiety regarding global warming: the erroneous connection between climate change and Hurricane Katrina.
After all, a huge part of the marketing and subsequent impact of this film was its finger-pointing at global warming being responsible for what happened in New Orleans in September 2005. Without the hysterical and unscientific claims about said connection, this film likely would not have generated near the buzz that it did.
Even the marquee poster advertising the film used an image of a hurricane coming out of a smokestack to establish this connection.
As such, now that a judge has specifically ruled that there was "insufficient evidence to show that" global warming was responsible for Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent damage and suffering in New Orleans, it is incumbent upon media to share this revelation with the public in order to put an end to this canard.
Anything less and press outlets around the country are once again abdicting their solemn responsibility to the public in order to advance an agenda.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Just being a smart @ss
October 11, 2007 - 11:28 ET by taterWhat I think is the cause of global warming...the sun.
tater
October 11, 2007 - 11:36 ET by Noel Sheppardtater,
You're not being a smartass. Many skeptics believe that longterm climate changes are indeed caused by variations in solar output. Count me in that group. ns
Noel
October 11, 2007 - 11:38 ET by taterI'm in the group as well...I am a weatherman who doesn't believe one ounce of Al Gore's claims. It just amazes me how many people will believe anything fed to them when the most reasonable answer is in the sky.
Absolutely! I remember an
October 11, 2007 - 11:49 ET by rimskyAbsolutely! I remember an NB post from months ago, wherein somebody asked, 'what do you think causes GW?' And my answer was THE SUN, and for the same reasons that you mention, Noel. Human beings just simply don't have the power to affect the globe in such a way as to override any of the cosmic powers that rage outside our little cacoon. That does NOT negate the need to be good stewards of our surroundings and to conserve energy and on and on. But buying into this AGW crapola is a huge guilt trap that will do nothing but transfer more of our hard earned money into the pockets of opportunistic schleps like Gore. <rant over>
Human Vs. Nature
October 11, 2007 - 14:56 ET by NofHere some terrestrial perspective on our size compared to Mt. St. Helens.
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Imgs/Jpg/MSH/MSH07/MSH07_helicopter_over_dome_08-29-07.jpg
Can you see the helicopter? Perhaps we should try to tame something smaller then the Earth as a whole and then see if we are successful before destroying our way of life for not.
By the way...its the SUN stupid! Got it.?? AL?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
Sun output increasing .05% per decade since 70's? Gosh weren't they saying we were all gonna freeze back then? Sun's output 386x10 24 watts. Man's power generating capacity (2004) 15x10 12 watts. OR 3.88x 10 -14% of the sun's output. Yeah...we have such a big impact.
"When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat" R. Reagan
There's so much wrong
October 11, 2007 - 20:41 ET by Space CowboyThere's so much wrong with this post that it would take days to fully address the falsehoods and distortions - not the least of which is a judge passing, er, judgment on a documentaryon a scientific subject using the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report as his apparent sole scientific source. What he fails to note and you fail to pointout to your readers is that the IPCC report itself was a political document that was toned down because of political decent from some of the participating nations -notably China, India and the United States. There are numerous OTHER equally or MORE qualified reports that have pointed out that the IPCC report erred on the side of understating the problem. So, we have an English judge of questionable scientific standing claiming the documentary is "politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change" using a document, which is itself not an impartial analysis, to dispute Gore's documentary. But, I'm sure that will suffice for the level of discernment displayed here at theNewsBuster's Inhofe school of climate science.
Of the "inaccuracies", the easiest to rebut is the one that you claim is the most blatant distortion - the "hysterical and unscientific claims" about the connection between hurricane Katrina and global warming. There's numerous comments and studies out that have already made a clear link between hurricane strength and frequency and global warming. Referencing just one of these, a study by Benjamin D. Santer of the LawrenceLivermore National Laboratory of the Energy Department which was reported a year ago, his findings suggest that further warming would probably make hurricanes stronger in coming decades. Since hurricanes feed off of warm water it's not a big stretch to make that connection as this study shows.
In the case of Katrina, for instance, it came ashore for the first time in the Florida Keys causing it to fall to a level 1-2. When it hit the Gulf of Mexico, which at the time had surface temperatures (down to 100 ft.) of around 80 degrees, it immediately built again to a level 4-5. It was rated a level 5 when it came ashore in Mississippi and Louisiana. I understand that there haven't been enough studies yet to factor out every possible variable, but it's not hyperbole or specious science to suggest that Katrina was amped up by the unusually high temperatures of the Gulf. Santer's study does make that suggestion although only looks to the future.
On an anecdotal level, you might have noticed the reports, for instance, that last hurricane season was the first ever inwhich we had two category five hurricanes in the Atlantic in one year. We also witnessed the FASTEST amplificationof a storm to hurricane strength. Fromthe Houston Chronicle:
Humberto didn't exist until late Wednesday afternoon, and wasn't even a tropical storm until almost midday, strengthening from a tropical depression with 35-mph winds to a hurricane with 85-mph winds in just 18 hours,senior hurricane specialist James Franklin said at the National Hurricane Center in Miami.
But, I'm sure youâ'll find a way to make all this into "hysteria" at the Inhofe School of "Science".
On the subject of sea level rise, here's an article worth looking at from Paul Brown at Alternet (http://www.alternet.org/environment/64735/) about the melting of the Greenland glaciers. An excerpt:
. . . justto give you some idea of the problem, the Greenland ice cap is melting at sucha fast rate it is triggering earthquakes as pieces of ice several cubic kilometersin size break up.
Scientists say the acceleration of melting and subsequent speeding up of giant glaciers could be catastrophic in terms of sea level rise and make previous predictions published this year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) far too low.The glacier at Ilulissat, which it is believed spawned the iceberg which sank the Titantic, is now flowing three times faster into the sea than it was 10years ago.
Robert Correll, chairman of the Artic Climate Impact Assessment, from Washington told me:"We have seen a massive acceleration of the speed with which these glaciers are moving into the sea. The ice is moving at 2 metres an hour on a front five kilometres long and 1,500 metres deep."That means that this one glacier puts enough fresh water into the sea inone day to provide drinking water for a city the size New York or London for a year."
Professor Correll, whois also director of the global change programme at the Heinz Centre in Washington said the estimates of sea level rise in the IPCC report inFebruary had been "conservative" and based on data two years old. The range of rise this century had been predicted to be 20 to 60 centimetres, but would be the upper end of this range at a minimum and some now believed it could be two metres. This would have catastrophic effects for European and US coastlines.
He said newly invented ice penetrating radar showed that the melt water was pouring through to the bottom of the glacier creating a melt water lake 500 metres deep causingthe glacier "to float on land. "These melt water rivers are lubricating the glacier, like applying oil to a surface and causing it to slideinto the sea. It is causing a massive acceleration which could be catastrophic."
The glacier is now moving at 15 kilometres a year into the sea although in periodic surges it moves even faster. He has seen a surge, which he had measured as moving fivekilometres in 90 minutes - an extraordinary event.
And, pleasetake note, they are referring ONLY to the consequences of the melting of the GREENLAND glaciers. This is just one area that is melting faster than anyone predicted only last year. You may have taken note of the record ice melt this year in the Artic.
As I said at the beginning, this could take days to rebut, but let me leave you with a few more links:
Here's the presentation on the link between hurricanes and global warming by the Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/hurricanes-and-climate-change.html
A recent study at the University of North Carolina linking global warming and the loss of coral reefs:
"We have already lost half of the world's reef-building corals, said Bruno, lead author of the study.
The researchers were surprised to find that coralcover declined in both protected and unprotected reefs, a sign that coral lossis "a global phenomenon, likely due in part to large-scale stressors suchas climate change," according to UNC.
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0808-coral.html
So, I'll be looking forward to the replies from the James Inhofe school of "scientific study". Oh, wait, I know the answer already - It's the sun, stupid.
"You know somethingâs happening but you donâtknow what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?" BobDylan
spacely
October 11, 2007 - 20:53 ET bystudies out that have already made a clear link between hurricane strength and frequency and global warming
Exactly why we had two of the mildest hurricane seasons in centuries in 2006 and 2007.
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
First of all, we may have
October 11, 2007 - 21:11 ET by Space CowboyFirst of all, we may have had a generally mild season in regards to NUMBERS of hurricanes, but we had TWO level 5 hurricanes for the first time as well as the FASTEST forming hurrican EVER. Are you paying attention to what's happening or just eager to slobber all over yourself showing how ignorant you are?
Global warming doesn't guarrentee that every hurricane season will be worse than the last. There are cycles within cycles. What global warming IS doing is AMPLIFYING the severity of storms - storms of all kinds. Hurricanes are more severe - as the TWO level five hurricanes in one season this year show as well as the FASTEST forming hurricane ever recorded.
But, don't take my word for it. Check out what the insurance industry - not exactly the embodiment of radical values - has been saying for years about the increasing severity of storms. They've been lobbying for YEARS about the problems of the increasing severity of storms. You might want to check out insurance rates in Florida if you don't believe me.
Check back when you've got a clue.
spacely
October 11, 2007 - 21:26 ET byhype it, hype it.
What baseline of information do you have? Thirty years of satelite? Yeah it's amazing how exciting the weather has gotten. And insurance companies lobbying for rate increases? My isn't that radical.
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
Sorry. The two recent
October 12, 2007 - 08:04 ET by danboSorry. The two recent hurricane record seasons. 1933 and 2005. 1933 had 21 storms whereas 2005 29. However 1933 had 19 storms making landfall. Whereas 2005 had 17. What's missing from the 1933 records are the storms that never made landfall.
The average number of storms to make landfall since 1966 when we started using satellite imagery has been 59%. Prior to 1966 75% make landfall.
While there were no years since 1966 where more than 80% of storms made landfall; prior to 1966 there are 15 years in which 100% of known storms made landfall. (The last being about 1961 or 62.)
In the 2005 season we had an interesting storm. Gert. It was a low grade tropical storm that came ashore in a part of Mexico with few people. It was not recorded in land stations. And did little damage. It was identified by satellite and planes.
In 2006 you had the unnamed storm that was identified after the season when data was reviewed.
The evidence is that we missed a lot of storms prior to 1966.
If Katrina was the result of AGW?
What caused Hurricane Camile 1969?
What caused the labor day 1935 storm Florida Keys?
What caused the Galveston storm 1900?
Sorry. Looks like the sky is falling is more a result in differences in data collection. And we're not even getting into radar which allows us to glimpse wind speeds in cells within storms.
But hey. "The sky is falling!"
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
OMG! Spaced-out Cowpie really is back!
October 11, 2007 - 21:13 ET by Dave RAnd, as for you quoting Bob Dylan, that only proves that you are as whacked-out as he was/is.
Piles o' huck, BTW.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Johnbo
October 11, 2007 - 21:20 ET by BlondeCan't you warmers at least TRY to get your facts straight?
In the case of Katrina, for instance, it came ashore for the first time in the Florida Keys causing it to fall to a level 1-2.
Don't be such a fool. Katrina first made landfall at the Dade/Broward line, not the Keys. At the point Katrina made first landfall, it was a category 1 storm, and the Florida Keys had nothing to do with it "falling to a 1 - 2 level. It had never been any stronger than that until it crossed into the Gulf Waters. Which, FYI, are usually very warm by the end of August.
Secondly, it was a strong Category 3 as in came ashore on the Gulf Coast. From NOAA:
With sustained winds during landfall of 125 mph (110 kts) (a strong category 3 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson scale).
Not a Cat 5 as you claim.
So....why don't you try that fact thing again, Johnbo. Didn't work out for you there very well slinging around your warmer claims, now, did it?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Is this Johnbo under a new
October 12, 2007 - 08:15 ET by danboIs this Johnbo under a new nom de plum?
Is he going to tell us again that a melting ice shelf will cause sea level to rise?
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
dan
October 12, 2007 - 08:28 ET by BlondeYep, Space is Johnbo.
Same bad voodoo.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
It is funny, that someone
October 12, 2007 - 08:47 ET by danboIt is funny, that someone who doesn't understand archimedes or definitions is going to lecture us on science.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Tried to tell you the other nite that Johnbo was back, Blonde
October 12, 2007 - 08:50 ET by RJ....when I made a joke about it to Jer, but you were in denial. Considering the warped-reality, blown-thread implications of his presence, that's understandable. ;^)
Space Cowboy
October 11, 2007 - 21:23 ET by Free StinkerAnd, pleasetake note, they are referring ONLY to the consequences of the melting of the GREENLAND glacier
And, for example: the Greenand glacier is actually getting thicker. It isn't the only one either.
There is also quite a bit of dissent:
These list isn't even comprehensive.
Speaking of 1998
October 11, 2007 - 23:00 ET by ReformedLib Re-FormedConThere was an episode of Frasier on from '98 the other night, co-starring Cuddy from the show House. Frasier made reference to GW way back then. I thought we only had a few years before we'd all be dead from GW...
http://imdb.com/title/tt0582404/
Oh, yeah, and I remember being terrified as a teenager over the next Ice Age that was going to cut my adult life short in my 20s/30s. It was pretty nice outside today. Go figger.
The Sun
October 11, 2007 - 12:09 ET by philhoeyIt is not the Sun that is also causing Mars ice caps to melt. It is all the flatuent cows on Mars. :)
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
From eating too many Mars
October 11, 2007 - 15:00 ET by Clear thinkerFrom eating too many Mars Bars.
Let's see Al take this on!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Martian SUVs
October 11, 2007 - 20:54 ET byit's the two rovers: Range and Land
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
Also
October 11, 2007 - 11:40 ET by taterI wonder how many of the global warming alarmnist know this...water vapor is the most efficient greenhouse gas, many times more than CO2.
tater
October 11, 2007 - 11:48 ET by Noel Sheppardtater,
Can't me in this group, too. Actually, methane and nitrous oxide are also stronger greenhouse gases than CO2. However, you can't tie any of these three to industry, and that's why these disingenuous alarmists don't talk about them. ns
Noel, Nuke plants release
October 11, 2007 - 11:56 ET by bassndudeNoel, Nuke plants release water vapor. Seems to me they would attack them. They do fit into the "no nukes" chant. For me tho, there are to many variables involved. The earth wobbles in its orbit, the tilt varies, sun spots, our orbit is some what elliptical, the spin is slowing down, the moon is moving farther away and frankly, we may be inching closer to the sun as the orbit deterorates. But CO2? The least of our worries at the moment.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Noel, Actually,
October 11, 2007 - 12:39 ET by JoeBobNoel,
Actually, nitrous oxide is tied to the airline industry, as NOX emissions come from running jet aircraft engines. The aircraft engine makers make lower NOX emissions a big selling point (SFC and acoustics are other big leverage points).
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
Well nitrious oxide is
October 12, 2007 - 08:11 ET by danboWell nitrious oxide is funny. ;D
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
tater, in your opinion based
October 11, 2007 - 15:03 ET by dscotttater, in your opinion based on the information you know, what would the "greenhouse potential" for water vapor be? There is scant little information and I suspect that just like the sun, they discounted water vapor under the specious claim that it doesn't vary enough to count.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity
dscott, from what I have
October 11, 2007 - 15:14 ET by bassndudedscott, from what I have seen and read, water vapor in the graph that Algore shows was droped because it dwarfed all of the others in the warming efect. Droped them to the point that they were insignificant. Remove water vapor from the graph and CO2 takes over. Water vapor is the number 1 greenhouse gas. Leaving CO2 in the dust. Water vapor accounts for 90-95% of the green house effect.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
This I know, however, in
October 11, 2007 - 15:36 ET by dscottThis I know, however, in comparison to CO2 which is considered 1, what value GWP would water vapor amount to? Methane has a value of 10.5 GWP for it's lifetime. http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gcp/gwpotential/images/image3.gif
You will notice that the IPCC refused to list water with a GWP even though it is estimated at 3 to 4% of the atmosphere where as CO2 runs 387 ppm or 0.0386%.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity
From what my teacher & books told me
October 11, 2007 - 16:50 ET by tater...I had to dust off some old books and notes from school but to put into persective, if there was no water vapor on earth the average temperature would be closer to around 15 degrees farenheit (for the entire earth)...with the water vapor you get the average temperature to be around 55-57 degreees.
Tater
October 11, 2007 - 20:59 ET byIn the 70s they were afraid of 'global cooling', wasn't that about the same time that hot tubs started to be all the rage?
"Television is where you watch people in your living room that you would not want near your house." Groucho
The whole notion
October 11, 2007 - 11:48 ET by 10ksnookerThat CO2 is the cause of globull warming being called a lie should be enough to put an end to this liberal tragedy. But it won't. How else would the liberals blame the car for all our problems if the truth were widely known.
A Nobel Pieace prize for a lie, a blatant propaganda film, who would have ever thought you would see that. Nobel just dropped the last vestige of prestiege their award once had.
Didn't everyone know this was how the tragedy would end? Leftitst the world over unite in one big communist chant, we are the world. So what is next for the propagandists?
But the sun, yes the sun, the real cause is left sitting it out. Notice how the sun is never mentioned by the liberal propaganda parrots. I wonder why? My take, the sun will get the last laugh.
Katrina and the current Lack of 2007 TC activity
October 11, 2007 - 12:05 ET by tropicalreportThere are climatologists that are somewhat reputable that do in fact believe that Katrina was *enhanced* by global warming caused by humans. However, the chain of reasoning is like the 6 degrees of separation of Kevin Bacon. It is impossible to ascribe causation to correlation with GW & Katrina yet Al Gore does it incessantly.
From numbers here http://www.coaps.fsu... , the 2007 Northern Hemisphere TC yearly activity will be the (weakest|slowest|least active) since 1977. And anyone alive during the illustrious Carter administration knows that the winter of 1977-1978 was (cold|snowy|windy|crappy). So, is it possible that the upcoming winter will be COLD? Al Gore perhaps could weigh in, considering he is such an accomplished predictor of all things, especially election results.
well, at least...
October 11, 2007 - 16:00 ET by UndercoverConservativeNobel still has a good rep for it's Physics prize..
http://www.scienceda...
of course "literature" goes to some poor feminist author...
Who cares what that stinkin'
October 11, 2007 - 12:00 ET byWho cares what that stinkin' limey judge says! The Brits are a bunch of yellow cut'n'runners!
Easy there blaster.
October 11, 2007 - 13:15 ET by KarmaTry to calm down now and tell us what's on your mind.
The judge finds 9 clear
October 11, 2007 - 13:41 ET by american-americanThe judge finds 9 clear misrepresentations in Gore's shockumentary, and you find it neccessary to insult an entire country? Nice work dude.
Generation Investment Management
October 11, 2007 - 14:04 ET by MikeNow that the movie is proven to be factually flawed, maybe we can look at the real reason that Al Gore is pushing this on the world. GIM is Gore's carbon offset company, from which he will make millions of dollars if the world buys into the hysteria. I have heard liberals throw out Halliburton for years now, and while that really just means that they can't win a debate with facts, I would love for GIM to be a rallying cry for the right. I am still confused how the conservatives are said to dislike science, when the left has rallied around a non-scientific documentary hosted by a politician.
There is evidence that many
October 11, 2007 - 14:06 ET by paperheadThere is evidence that many other bodies in the solar system are also warming up. Will the MSM report on these as well? No, because it would not further their agenda of taxing capitalism plain and simple. I could care less if Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace prize. Since they gave one to Carter, it has become a meaningless honor.
http://web.mit.edu/n...
You mean to tell me there
October 11, 2007 - 15:54 ET by mulerider24You mean to tell me there are other right wing, oil funded scientists at MIT? When will the madness stop?
"There are climatologists
October 11, 2007 - 17:07 ET by ckc1227"There are climatologists that are somewhat reputable that do in fact
believe that Katrina was *enhanced* by global warming caused by humans."
If true, then we should use that as an example of why we have little to fear from global warming, as there was nothing remarkable or unusual about Katrina when it made landfall as a category 3 storm. Had it struck anywhere other than New Orleans, a sinking city that is already below sea level, it would be viewed as just another hurricane.
And the siphoning of funds
October 11, 2007 - 17:29 ET by Mike From CanmoreCKC:
Don't forget the funds designated for reinforcing the dykes that politicians diverted into pet vote buying projects.
*Argue for your limitations and sure enough you will achieve them.
Plus, as the storm
October 11, 2007 - 17:39 ET by danboPlus, as the storm passed New Orleans. It was to the east. As a result the winds were from north to south. Pushing the water that had piled up in the lake as the storm approached, directly at the city and levees.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Yup.
October 11, 2007 - 23:10 ET by ReformedLib Re-FormedConThis is why I tried to convince everyone I know that they needed flood insurance. I lived on high ground, some of the highest in St. Bernard Parish (the forgotten parish, next to N.O.) and I still had 5.5 feet of water. I try to explain it thusly: If you put a crouton in a bowl and fill the bowl with water, it doesn't matter that the crouton is the highest point in the bowl... it's still going to be covered by the water.
I still miss my sofa. It was the most comfy sofa ever. That, and my truck and my great-grandma's bedroom set.
Reformed
October 11, 2007 - 23:16 ET by BlondeSorry for the loss of great-granny's bedroom set. That is terrible.
Where I live (south Fla)...I wouldn't be caught dead w/o Flood Insurance. I may cancel my windstorm, though, I can't afford it. It tripled last year. And it appears that FEMA will bail out stupidity. And I figure the odds of getting flooded by a hurricane are alot higher than having my house blown down.
Those of us who live with hurricane season know what to do. Thankfully.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
}}---> Reformed
October 11, 2007 - 23:17 ET by Cool ArrowI think you just described a Blivet. "ten pounds of manure in a five-pound bag" sort of.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
You know Mayor Nagin and
October 12, 2007 - 11:39 ET by dscottYou know Mayor Nagin and the Dems had to blame their incompetence on something else for leaving hundreds of school buses and city buses in the parking lots to be drowned. Not to mention ditching thousands of poor people at the Superdome while he got his stuff safely out of town. AGW is as good as any other scape goat and the Rubes bought it! Hey, they re-elected him, the truth is whatever they believe it to be.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity
Decision
October 11, 2007 - 22:25 ET by scamoramaFor those with a legal sense, the good justice's decision can be found here:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.rtf