NewsBusters readers are well aware of the recent controversy involving Al Gore’s schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”
A few weeks ago, a British judge cited nine errors in the film. Team Gore responded Thursday in a rebuttal published at the Washington Post’s Fact Checker blog.
Now, famed climate change skeptic Christopher Monckton, in a detailed report published by the Science and Public Policy Institute, not only refuted Gore’s defense of the movie's contents, but also listed a total of 35 errors in the award-winning abomination responsible for most of the global warming hysteria sweeping the planet (emphasis added):
Al Gore’s spokesman and “environment advisor,” Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by saying that the film presented “thousands and thousands of facts.” It did not: just 2,000 “facts” in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds. The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate.
The judge concentrated only on nine points which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.
Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the term “errors.” In fact, the judge used the term “errors,” in inverted commas, throughout his judgment.[…]
Ms. Kreider then says, “The process of creating a 90-minute documentary from the original peer-reviewed science for an audience of moviegoers in the U.S. and around the world is complex.”However, the single web-page entitled “The Science” on the movie’s official website contains only two references to articles in the peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is also a reference to a document of the IPCC, but its documents are not independently peer-reviewed in the usual understanding of the term.
Ms. Kreider then says, “The judge stated clearly that he was not attempting to perform an analysis of the scientific questions in his ruling.” He did not need to. Each of the nine “errors” which he identified had been admitted by the UK Government to be inconsistent with the mainstream of scientific opinion.
Ms. Kreider says the IPCC’s results are sometimes “conservative,” and continues: “Vice President Gore tried to convey in good faith those threats that he views as the most serious.” Readers of the long list of errors described in this memorandum will decide for themselves whether Mr. Gore was acting in good faith. However, in this connection it is significant that each of the 35 errors listed below misstates the conclusions of the scientific literature or states that there is a threat where there is none or exaggerates the threat where there may be one. All of the errors point in one direction – towards undue alarmism. Not one of the errors falls in the direction of underestimating the degree of concern in the scientific community. The likelihood that all 35 of the errors listed below could have fallen in one direction purely by inadvertence is less than 1 in 34 billion.
Readers are strongly encouraged to review the entire report, as well as all 35 errors chronicled by Monckton. Your attention is critical, for Gore’s film, though powerfully and convincingly presented, is indeed a work of fiction, and its veracity should be questioned with every conceivable opportunity.
Any other conclusion is facile and devoid of logic.
Make no mistake: as was clearly intended by the film’s producers, its star, and our woefully biased media, this celluloid canard has provoked tremendous international alarm concerning global warming that is neither warranted nor beneficial.
It should come as no great surprise that such was forecast in April when NewsBusters warned readers of the dangers associated with Gore’s propaganda. For those that have forgotten, a federal judge cited “An Inconvenient Truth” in his ruling against the government for its financing of overseas projects that supposedly contribute to climate change.
At the time, I cautioned (emphasis added): “[T]he alarmism running through society concerning this issue, and being flamed by Gore and his sycophant cadre in the media and Hollywood, clearly carries risks that an obedient and complicit press ignore.”
Six months later, these warnings seem rather prescient, as the hysteria has now officially begun to impact energy policy as evidenced by Thursday’s decision in Kansas to deny a license to an electricity producer for the construction of a new coal-fired power plant. Ominously, concerns over carbon emissions and their supposed impact on climate change were cited in the state's announcement regarding the matter.
Maybe just as cautionary, it appears Europe is going to start requiring carbon dioxide emissions warnings in advertisements for new cars, as well as imposing taxes on automobiles releasing the greatest amount of "greenhouse gases."
As a result, it should be crystal clear that the efforts on the left and by the media are beginning to have a policy impact not just here, but across the globe.
Sadly, this is just the beginning. Consider the proposal by House Energy and Commerce Committee chair John Dingell (D-MI) who in September offered a rather painful carbon emissions plan that would establish an additional 50 cent tax on gasoline as well as scale back the deductability of the interest on mortgages for some homeowners.
Lest we not forget House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Cal.) call for a European-style cap-and-trade program that reins in corporate carbon dioxide emissions.
These are but two of the dangerous schemes being tossed around Washington that would have potentially catastrophic impacts upon the economy, and have gained steam as a direct consequence of Gore's indoctrination campaign aided and abetted by a green media.
It has therefore become imperative for all supporters of liberty, democracy, and capitalism to fight the propagandist forces in our nation seeking to undermine our very way of life.
If you think that's putting too fine a point on the situation, ask yourself how you're going to provide electricity to your home, and what it's going to cost, if the warm-mongers have their way, and no more coal-fired OR nuclear power plants are built in this country.
Try also to imagine how our economy, and, therefore, your personal finances, are going to suffer as countries like China, India, Russia, and Brazil are allowed unfettered expansion of their energy creation while America curtails its own all to solve a problem that has yet to be proved either exists or can be mitigated by anything under man's control.
If you don't think one movie can cause this much political and economic upheaval, please recall what "The China Syndrome" did to catalyze the No Nukes movement in the '80s, and how America is still suffering from the hysteria it provoked 28 years ago.
The only remaining question is whether we are going to learn from this horrendous past mistake, or once again allow our economic and energy policies to be controlled by misplaced and erroneous environmental alarmism.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
-
October 21, 2007 - 21:37 ET by dahliatraversThirty Five. Oh such a nice item to come back to.
There is also a reference to a document of the IPCC, but its documents are not independently peer-reviewed in the usual understanding of the term.
And that is a big part of the problem. Yet another tenet of the scientific method violated.
The hoax will fail
October 21, 2007 - 22:13 ET by 10ksnookerThe Internet, another of the Goracle's inventions, will prevail. The scientific evidence is piling up.
I wonder why no one questioned the Goracle when the he is standing in front of the nice curve portraying temperature rising before the CO2 rising and ask the Goracle the simple question --- why did this happen before there was a SUV??? CO2 was as high or higher than it is now, temperature is as high or higher than it is now, and no one asked the simple question, why? Why not?
OTHER Inconvenient Truths
October 22, 2007 - 06:37 ET by MitchellA Climate Change Omission
Heat from undersea hydrothermal vents at the ocean ‘basement’ has been ignored by the IPCC as a contributor to Climate Change.
Increased Total Hydrothermal Flux (THF) may be due to a multi-century long expansion (bursts) of tectonic plates. Ocean basement heat generates THF contributing to ocean warming through Thermo-Haline Circulation (THC). A well established estimated for the absolute THF is ~9x10^12 W [Elderfield and Schultz, 1996].
“~9x10^12 W” represents Watts; in fact 9 Terawatts (9TW); about 75% of the current 12TW of all man-made power used today for ~6 billion residents.
IPCC has also ignored tectonic plate expansion (“palaeoradius”), hydrothermal vent bursts and increased ‘cyclical’ THF compared to 500, 100 or even 50 years ago. The planet may simply and quite naturally be getting warmer due to our ‘basement’ heat.
The 2001 IPCC report at Working Group 1: The Scientific Basis; 7.3.3 Interior Ocean Mixing mentions neither hydrothermal vents nor THF effects on climate change; a rather large 9TW omission.
The 2001 IPCC reported: In summary, the uncertainties associated with interior ocean mixing parametrizations [sic] are likely to be small for climate projections over a few decades but could be considerable over longer time scales.
IPCC 2001 hedged where it concluded that “…over longer time scales.” interior ocean [THF] mixing could be considerable.
Even one TW is a lot of heat. 9 TW equals 9000 one-megawatt power stations. All of those sub-sea and annual Terawatts would accumulate to some degree (excuse the pun) over “longer time scales”.
The ocean’s basement is constantly heating ocean waters that move in a ~1000 year cycle around the globe in warm and cold currents. The oceans may be visualized as a big pot of salty water on a small bunch of “hot plates” transferring 9TW of energy per year.
Why has nobody, especially the IPCC, bothered to look at 9TW of THF heat coming from the abyss? Maybe, it is because THF is a natural evolutionary physical phenomenon that we can do nothing (with today’s technology) to alter. However, the climate change debate might itself be altered if industry could find a way to harvest even some of that 9 TW for use on land; saving two birds with one lithosphere.
By the way; does anybody remember the ACID RAIN from 'the sky is falling' crisis initiative of the 1970's?
Mitchell NewDelman
I remember that, and I
October 22, 2007 - 08:52 ET by Seabeach4348I remember that, and I remember the dreaded "Ozone Hole" and how CFCs were causing the ozone layer to disappear. According to some of the "environmental experts" at the time, the ozone layer would be practically gone by 2000.
It isn't science at all.
October 22, 2007 - 11:55 ET by CortillaenThe worst part about all of this idiocy is that they are convincing people that science is whatever they are told it is. People need to understand that a very large part of what makes up the "science" of global warming is not truly scientific. Take a look at the scientific method; there are these little parts called Experimentation and Reproducibility that seem to be ignored. For a theory to be supported (no, not proven; science cannot actually "prove" anything) scientifically, it must undergo experiments intended to disprove it. Wanna guess when the last time any of these green quasi-scientists actually conducted experiments on their theories, much less experiments with the intent to disprove? The other part, Reproducibility, is even further ignored. A theory is only acceptable if the experiments regarding it can be reproduced, perfectly, anytime. Coincidentally, I haven't seen a lab large enough to reproduce a modest-sized warm front, much less the entire globe.
There are simply some areas where science cannot truly be applied. What they are doing part of the time is applying it on a small scale, then scaling it up several orders of magnitude by trying to apply what may happen in a localized area to the workings of the entire planet, an act that is unscientific in the extreme; this is supposed to be hard science, not statistics. The rest of the time, they are simply observing phenomenon and speculating on the cause, no testing involved, then trying to call it science through consensus of a group of people who speculate the same; again, this is supposed to be hard science, not a club.
The reason for all of this idiocy in trying to label something so unscientific "Science", is attributable to our culture. These days, if "Mr. Scientist" says it, it must be true, no questions asked. Warmmongers understand that, and have taken great pains to ensure that climatology (even through the name, you see) has been labeled "Science", turning it, in many people's minds, into a field of precise measurements, calculations, and laws, standing next to such venerable fields as Physics and Chemistry. They've made sure their speakers have the psychological weight of "Science" behind their words, even though there is little scientific about climate studies. The whole game is a sham, start to finish, preying off of people's preconceptions and fears.
http://www.rhjunior.... Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Mt Fuji
October 22, 2007 - 12:42 ET by Mike From CanmoreCortillaen:
If people had listened to the consensus of the day, the world would still be flat.
Off topic but I thought you might enjoy this. Regarding Mt. Fuji, the Japanese also have another saying.
There are 2 types of fools in Japan. Those who never climb Mt. Fuji and those who climb it twice. BTW, I'm the 2nd type. Twice in one weekend.
Enjoyed your post.
*Argue for your limitations and sure enough you will achieve them.
That's good, and I don't
October 22, 2007 - 14:13 ET by CortillaenThat's good, and I don't think I've ever heard it before. I really need to visit Japan someday, though that could be a while coming. Ever since I read his Go Rin no Sho, I've found Musashi intriguing, and some of his quotes especially so. "Do nothing which is of no use," is another one the media should take heed of. Come to think of it, Algy would be out of business if he took that one seriously.
http://www.rhjunior.... Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
ask yourself how you're
October 21, 2007 - 22:35 ET by motherbeltask yourself how you're going to provide electricity to your home, and what
it's going to cost, if the warm-mongers have their way, and no more
coal-fired OR nuclear power plants are built in this country. - NS
They don't want coal, they don't want nuclear. There are complaints that windmills will kill birds (besides being unsightly, according to Ted Kennedy. Hydro-electric...well we can't build more dams, not only because of the water situation in a lot of places, but because of snail-darters and heaven knows what else. Solar is simply impractical. I read somewhere the entire state of Illinois would have to be covered in solar panels just to supply Chicago with electricity.
So all they can do is talk "conservation." In other words, spreading the current, limited "supply" of energy around among more and more people, as the population increases. At that rate, eventually the entire country will have to be in a series of "rolling brownouts." Maybe we will only have electricity for a few hours a day, like they did in Europe during WW II.
Noel
October 21, 2007 - 23:21 ET by krismcsherryThe only remaining question is whether we are going to learn from this horrendous past mistake, or once again allow our economic and energy policies to be controlled by misplaced and erroneous environmental alarmism.
I'm a little weary of this AGW controversy overall this weekend. I've been following the arguments back and forth for over a year and I haven't seen the feds or those in our state gov't show any common sense despite refutations like this one from Monckton and others of late which challenge the accepted "consensus". It's like they've gone mad with the fear of evil spirits coming to get them or something. The people at junkscience once wrote that the insanity would get worse before it gets better and I have to agree right now.
Damn that Co2! If only it would stabilize like the methane levels then we wouldn't be getting more kneejerk regulations from even fairly sensible politicians like Joe Lieberman. They all disappoint, from Bush to Newt to Arnold the Asinine.
You're right, Noel, the only question is whether we are going to learn from these past mistakes. When will people start to see the light and shout out against this and call Gore and his screwy movie for what it is: A piece of crap that's helped hyperventilate the AGW paranoia.
I'm studiously watching Mauna Loa for a sign of hope. Thanks, Noel, continue to highlight the counter-info, push it out into the open where everyone can see it, read it, and make up their own minds. We're ticking off some AGW proponents who love to blast their anger at the heresy of the skeptic, shouting "science, science!" or "Exxon!" or "peer-reviewed!" while ignoring anything that contradicts their faith. It's always so delicious to hear from them, like a good game of football.
By the way, I like the picture of Gore he looks like he's passing some time in the little boys' room.
"Six months later, these
October 21, 2007 - 23:16 ET by be_objective"Six months later, these warnings seem rather prescient, as the hysteria has now officially begun to impact energy policy as evidenced by Thursday’s decision in Kansas to deny a license to an electricity producer for the construction of a new coal-fired power plant. Ominously, concerns over carbon emissions and their supposed impact on climate change were cited in the state's announcement regarding the matter."
The same thing is happening in Wiscasset ME. The Twin River Energy company wants to build a $1.5 billion coal gasification plant that would bring much needed jobs and tax relief to the town. Even though the plant is supposed to be "ultra clean" the environmentalists are still opposed to it, of course siting GW as a reason. Did I mention that the proposed building site for this plant is also the site of the former Maine Yankee nuclear power plant? Also, the environmentalists are also opposed to a proposed wind farm in the Maine mountains. Why, you guessed it, because it will "obstruct the scenic view" and "interfere with wildlife". I seem to be noticing a backward trend here.
"In any compromise between good and evil, only evil can profit." Ayn Rand
-
October 22, 2007 - 00:14 ET by dahliatraversSooo ... with no replacement source in sight, the solution of Kansas and Maine is for everyone to pay more for energy. And/or have rolling blackouts. Neither of which will "solve" the far from proven phenomenon of AGW, not even the blackouts.
St. Albert and the Church of AGW.
October 21, 2007 - 23:27 ET by Dave R...as countries like China, India, Russia, and Brazil are allowed unfettered expansion of their energy creation while America curtails its own all to solve a problem that has yet to be proved either exists or can be mitigated by anything under man's control.
Noel,
That is the whole reason the left is such a staunch proponent of the AGW BS. It has nothing to do with "saving the environment," and everything to do with weakening this country, both ecomically and militarily. Their attempts to brink this condition about at the ballot box has, as they see it, essentially failed, as it has not brought about the socialist American "utopian" state quite as quickly as the left would like.
The weakening of this country has been the goal of the left since day one. The AGW scare is just another in a long line of attempts by the left to realize their ultimate goal. If this should not work to their liking, they will find some other way.
-Like putting St. Hillary the Hideous in the White House.
Al Gore, Nobel Committee and Hollywood Oscar Lawsuit
October 21, 2007 - 23:49 ET by Lame CherryShould not the ACLU be filing lawsuits against Al Gore, Nobel and Hollywood Oscars for damages which this film is inflicting upon the world? The costs are in the billions inflicted upon industry, government mandates and hysteria foisted upon children thinking everyone is going to die.
Added to this are the basic facts that this film is bogus which constitutes it as a propaganda orchestrated by the elite socialist racists akin to Tokyo Rose, Nazi Propaganda, North Korean "education films" and the historic Kremlin lies.
Certainly Congress must pass a law as all nations requiring a label like on cigarettes, "Watching this film is considered hazardous to the Truth".
Gore and Laurie David should be the first people hauled into court, then Prof. Galen McKinley explaining her taking funds which could be used for the public good instead of her "gaseous studies" and then let the criminal ball start rolling on those elitists in the Nobel for their out right attacks upon the United States American government.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
In the immortal words of
October 22, 2007 - 00:27 ET by candanceIn the immortal words of Ann Coulter, at last they've found something that will take a while for us to prove wrong.
card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
I am so glad folks like Noel
October 22, 2007 - 01:21 ET by alamojbI am so glad folks like Noel are standing up to this nonsense. That being said, we should prepare for the worst. After Katrina I went down to my Grandparents who lived 40 miles from New Orleans. They were without electricity for a while. My grandfather had a generator to power his water well pump, but fuel was hard to come by. Thanks to some men driving many miles north with lots of fuel tanks, the generators in the community were able to keep running part time. But there were reports of bandits ambushing other trucks who were doing the same thing. (Think Mad Max!!)When Hurrican Camile came through in 1969, my grandfather still had a hand pump for his well but not in 2005. What I am saying is this folks, our electrical systems that we rely on are becoming more stressed from demand, there are terrorist that would like to hit us with nukes, etc. Every family needs to be prepared to live without electricity. This means not only canned foods, but the means to cook it. It means water supplies. Your own garden if things stayed bad long enough (Nuke scenario)Plant fruit trees now. Pay off your debts, in case the AGW fearmongers able to crash the economy or the oil supply gets cut off due to war. Like many of you, I am not afraid of AGW, what I am afraid of is people's reaction to the perceived threat.
:D! The Rocky Mountain
October 22, 2007 - 02:18 ET by wiwf:D!
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Seeing life's too short to
October 22, 2007 - 05:27 ET by Jack BauerSeeing life's too short to detail all the errors, wouldn't it be easier and quicker to identify any "fact" Al Gorge got right?
Check out my latest YouTube...but only if you support the troops and their mission: Better Men Than Me/The Battle For Fallujah
Well, at least we, as a
October 22, 2007 - 07:38 ET by Ruths husband BenWell, at least we, as a society, are finally discussing Gore's motives and methods. It is sad that the media bought the Global Warming crap, hook, line and sinker.
"We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices.... Government has to make those choices for people" -HRC
Media and global warming
October 22, 2007 - 07:42 ET by Cool ArrowI'm not sure the media bought it, I'm only certain they sell it.
"When you don't take your lips off the backside of George Soros long enough to speak out" M. Huckabee on Shrillary 10/21/07
Not only the media....
October 22, 2007 - 08:43 ET by Seabeach4348Notice that shortly after the bloated buffoon's film came out (last spring was it?) approximately 40% to 50% of the TV commercials have some kind of stupid AGW or "green" theme to them.
Case in point: Subaru with the rugged-looking outdoorsy dude telling us how environmentally friendly they are. Another are the mind-numbing E-surance commercials whining about automobile emissions. Evil, evil SUVs! Then there's the guy from Johnson & Johnson foaming at the mouth about how "going green" they are.
I have nothing against these companies (except maybe E-surance which is just plain idiotic) but if the enviro-socialist maniacs these companies are trying to mollify had their way, they'd be forced to close down for destroying "the environment" and for "killing the planet".
I don't know about you, but I've had just about enough of "going green" (which, btw, is stupid terminology). Right now I won't buy a product from a company hawking "green" as my silent protest.
}}---> Disturbing Gore Picture
October 22, 2007 - 08:20 ET by Cool ArrowWas Gore suffering from gastric distress when that pic was taken? Was a HAZMAT team called?
"When you don't take your lips off the backside of George Soros long enough to speak out" M. Huckabee on Shrillary 10/21/07
35 Mistakes?
October 22, 2007 - 08:22 ET by BadgermikeThat is one error every 2 minutes 40 seconds. I am shocked.
Can you imagine the amount
October 22, 2007 - 09:23 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltCan you imagine the amount of friction created by the event that caused the 2005 Tsunami? All that friction no doubt caused a great deal of heat to be released into the atmosphere via the ocean.
Nice Pic, Al!
October 22, 2007 - 09:39 ET by mattmThat picture is great! It looks like Al is having a more and more difficult time keeping the crap from ralphing up on him!
}}---> Tambora Gore
October 22, 2007 - 09:41 ET by Cool ArrowI think the mountain is about to blow!!
We have bigger problems than Global Warming ...
October 22, 2007 - 10:37 ET by drewinmass61Rather than worry about the effects of burning fossil fuels, I think it's time we start worrying about the *amount* of fossil fuels we have left to burn! And the consequences of what will happen when we run out! Strangely, I don't hear much about this from the lamestream media.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,2196435,00.html
The reason for that, Drew,
October 22, 2007 - 11:00 ET by MikeBThe reason for that, Drew, is that we ran out of oil 30 years ago. Then we ran out again 20 years ago. Then we ran out 15 years ago. Then we ran out 10 years ago.
Various doomsayers have been saying for a long time that we have only x number of years before y natural resource is used up. It was, what, 20 years ago when Ted Danson, the noted oceanographer and television actor stated that in 10 years the oceans would be dead?
How many times have environmentalists predicted a malthusian catastrophe right around the corner? How many times have those predictions failed to come true? How often was their solution to said problem to send them money?
Like the old saying goes: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a hundred times shame on me.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
What's the use?
October 22, 2007 - 10:50 ET by okiehawk44Gore and his followers have all but declared an end to humanity on this planet -- so what's the use of worrying about how much energy we use or recycling or driving SUVs etc? We are just years away from a horrible end anyway. Right? I think I'll take up smoking again. I did enjoy it and since the end is near ...
Oscars return
October 22, 2007 - 12:02 ET by petehThere was a post a few days ago re: Hollywood asking for the return of the Oscars awarded to Inconvenient Truth because of the many factual errors contained in it. This was fallout from the British truck driver's lawsuit against schools in Britain screening the movie to students. The court ruled that a disclaimer had to be shown that there were other points of view. I've seen nothing else on the return of the Oscars since then. Although not super surprising, I had expected to see or hear a follow up re: this. Was this a joke??
Note the media name change...
October 22, 2007 - 12:21 ET by Conservative BluesHas anyone else noticed how there are fewer references to "global waming" anymore? Instead, the MSM more and more is calling it "climate change." They are revising history and setting themselves up to maintain the debate when the climate shifts into it's next cool-down phase over the next 20 years. It's not about the science; it never has been. It's about money and power. Read any good George Orwell books recently?
Ecclesiastes 10:2 - "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
CB -- yep, I first started
October 22, 2007 - 12:27 ET by Jack BauerCB -- yep, I first started noticing that about a year ago.
Up until then it had never occured to me that in apx. three billion years the Earth has had a climate, it had ever changed one iota.
Like it's always rained in Seattle right? Even in 2,959,521,664 BC
Warming Vs. Climate
October 22, 2007 - 13:18 ET by Mike From CanmoreJB: A very strategic change which is more than likely in response to the fact Global temps have been in decline since 1998. This way they can blame every event on "evil" industries who just take your money. With McIntyre exposing 1934 as the highest temp. year, I guess we can say the temps have been in decline since 1934. But only in the US of course. I'm sure when you throw in the 2 or 3 reliable stations from the rest of the world, 1934 is nothing compared to 1998. (Tongue in Cheeck for the last couple of sentences).
*Argue for your limitations and sure enough you will achieve them.
Seabeach
October 22, 2007 - 13:30 ET by SeptemberI don't know about you, but I've had just about enough of "going green"
(which, btw, is stupid terminology). Right now I won't buy a product
from a company hawking "green" as my silent protest.
I agree it's a total turn-off, an absolute cliche. Another reason not to watch much TV.
I was running through a few decade-old VCR tapes one day and realized how "greenless" the commercials were back then--it was not a selling point and they were much less annoying. It's bizarre how this green thing has insidiously taken over so many facets of our lives.
I prefer the idea behind Pres. Vaclav Klaus's book: "Blue, not green, planet," which I don't think has been translated into English yet. Have to check.
Even conservatives send congratulations to Al Gore -
October 23, 2007 - 03:09 ET by BlindSightare they part of "the propagandist forces in our nation seeking to undermine our very way of life"?
Why do you consistently paint such a one-sided picture of the debate by ignoring those on the right who think that Gore is basically right in saying that there is a real and serious problem, even if they disagree on the appropriate policy approach?
Many of your statements here are strawmen so easily knocked down that surely you are aware that more level-headed people on the right have done exactly that.
1. Did you see what Ken Green of the American Enterprise Institute had to say? http://www.american....
2. And what does Bush's chief science adviser have to say?
http://www.washingto...
3. Is McCain a liberal who wants to destroy America? Hasn't he taken strong stands on this issue for some time?
4. Lomborg?
http://www.comedycen...
5. How about libertarian Ron Bailey, at Reason Magazine (chief editor of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death, Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2002))?
http://www.reason.co...
6. Surely you must also be aware of what Pres. Bush has said most recently on climate change; for convenience, I have quoted him below.
I agree whole-heartedly that we should not "allow our economic and energy policies to be controlled by misplaced and erroneous environmental alarmism" - but should we instead allow our economic and energy policies to be controlled by misplaced and erroneous environmental Pollyannaism?
Is there a middle course that involves a cool-headed debate such as Lomborg is looking for, or is a "hot" ideological positioning the best approach?
Sincerely,
BS
"Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people." Pres. George Bush
BS Propaganda
October 23, 2007 - 08:39 ET by PopularTechDoes this crap work with people who are incapable of comprehending the propaganda you are trying to push?
Ken Green has not provided one piece of evidence for the points you highlighted. Is this the same Ken Green that is a shill for Exxon? Make up your mind.
Wow, big surprise Bush's Science Advisor capitulates. How does that change the lack of evidence on man-made global warming or the positions of these scientists:
Scientists Disputing "Man-Made" Global Warming Theory:
Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, USA
Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Ben Herman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, USA
Bob Durrenberger, Retired Climatologist, Former President of the American Association of State Climatologists, USA
Bruno Wiskel, BSc. Honours Geology, University of Albert, Canada
Chris de Freitas, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, Australia
Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics Professor, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Christopher Landsea, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA
Craig D. Idso, M.S. Agronomy, Ph.D. Geography, Arizona State University, USA
David Deming, B.S. Geology, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Utah, USA
David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford, USA
David J. Bellamy, B.Sc. Botany, Ph.D. Ecology, Durham University, UK
David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Ph.D. Professor of Hydrology, University of Washington, USA
Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist, Retired, Raytheon, USA
Duncan Wingham, Ph.D. Physics, University of Bath, UK
Elliot Abrams, M.S. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Edward Wegman, Ph.D. Mathematical Statistics, University of Iowa, USA
Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus, Physics, Princeton, USA
Gary D. Sharp, Ph.D. Marine Biology, University of California, USA
Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA
George H. Taylor, M.S. Meteorology, University of Utah, USA
George V. Chilingarian, Ph.D. Geology, University of Southern California, USA
Habibullo Abdussamatov, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, The University of Leningrad, Russia
Hendrik Tennekes, Former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, The Netherlands
Henrik Svensmark, Solar System Physics, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Howard Hayden, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, USA
Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D. Meteorology, Formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA
Ian D. Clark, Professor Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, University of Adelaide, Australia
Jack Barrett, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Manchester, UK
James O’Brien, Ph.D. Meteorology, Texas A&M University, USA
Ján Veizer, Professor Emeritus Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, USA
Joe Sobel, Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, Rutgers University, USA
Joseph D’Aleo, M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
Keith D. Hage, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, University of Alberta, Canada
Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Harvard, USA
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus, Climatology, University of Lyon, France
Mel Goldstein, Ph.D. Meteorology, NYU, USA
Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard, USA
Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Ethnobotany, Ph.D. Nutritional Ethnomedicine, USA
Neil Frank, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Paul Driessen, B.A. Geology and Field Ecology, Lawrence University, USA
Paul Reiter, Professor of Medical Entomology, Pasteur Institute, France
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Patrick Moore, B.Sc. Forest Biology, Ph.D. Ecology, University of British Columbia, Canada
Petr Chylek, Ph.D. Physics, University of California, USA
Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of London, UK
Randall Cerveny, Ph.D. Geography, University of Nebraska, USA
Reid A. Bryson, B.A. Geology, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Richard C. Willson, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, USA
Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D. Geography, The Ohio State University, USA
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT, USA
Roger A. Pielke, Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University, USA
Robert Giegengack, Ph.D. Geology, Yale, USA
Robert H. Essenhigh, M.S. Natural Sciences, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Sheffield, UK
Robert Johnston, M.S. Physics, B.A. Astronomy, USA
Robert M. Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology, University of Cambridge, Australia
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard, USA
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota, USA
Simon C. Brassell, B.Sc. Chemistry & Geology, Ph.D. Organic Geochemistry, University of Bristol, UK
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D. Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK
Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, University of Toronto, Canada
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Founding Director International Arctic Research Center, USA
Tad S. Murty, Ph.D. Oceanography and Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Tim Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Carleton University, Canada
Timothy F. Ball, Ph.D. Geography, Historical Climatology, University of London, UK
Vincent Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Cambridge University, UK
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
William Cotton, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, USA
William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa
William M. Gray, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, USA
Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D. D.Sc., Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Poland
Deceased:
August
H. Auer Jr., AMS Certified Meteorologist, Professor Emeritus of
Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming, USA (Died: June 10, 2007)
Meteorologists:
A.J. Colby, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, AMS Certified Meteorologist WKYC-TV, USA
Andre Bernier, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist WJW-TV, USA
Anthony Watts, AMS Certified Meteorologist, Chief Meteorologist KPAY-AM, USA
Arlo Gambell, AMS Certified Meteorologist, USA
Art Horn, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist WVIT-TV, USA
Bill Meck, Chief Meteorologist WLEX-TV, USA
Bill Steffen, Meteorologist, WOOD-TV, USA
Bob Breck, B.S. Meteorology & Oceanography, University of Michigan, Chief Meteorologist WVUE-TV, USA
Brad Sussman, Meteorologist, USA
Brian Sussman, Meteorologist, USA
Bruce Schwoegler, B.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Christopher Plonka, Meteorologist, USAF, USA
Craig James, B.S. Meteorology, Penn State University, Chief Meteorologist WOOD-TV, USA
David Aldrich, B.S. Meteorology, North Carolina State University, Meteorologist WTXF-TV, USA
Dick Goddard, Chief Meteorologist WJW-TV, USA
Douglas Leahey, Meteorologist, Calgary, Canada
Eugenio Hackbart, Chief Meteorologist, MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center, Brazil
Herb Stevens, Meteorologist WNYT-TV, USA
James Spann, AMS Certified Meteorologist, Chief Meteorologist WCFT-TV, WJSU-TV, USA
Jason Russell, Meteorologist, WTEN-TV, USA
John Coleman, Meteorologist, Founder of 'The Weather Channel', Chief Meteorologist, KUSI-TV, USA
Jon Loufman, Meteorologist, WOIO-TV, USA
Justin Berk, B.S. Meteorology, Cornell University, AMS Certified Meteorologist WMAR-TV, USA
Karl Bohnak, B.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, AMS Certified Meteorologist, Meteorologist WLUC-TV, USA
Kevin Lemanowicz, B.S. Meteorology, Cornell University, Chief Meteorologist WFXT-TV, USA
Kevin Williams, B.S. Meteorology, Cornell University, Chief Meteorologist WHEC-TV, USA
Mark Koontz, Meteorologist WFMJ-TV, USA
Mark Breen, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Senior Meteorologist Fairbanks Museum and Planetarium, USA
Mark Johnson, AMS Certified Meteorologist, Chief Meteorologist, WEWS-TV, USA
Nick Morganelli, Free-Lance Meteorologist, USA
Rich Apuzzo, Chief Meteorologist Skyeye Weather, USA
Roy Leep, B.S. Meteorology, Florida State University, WTVT-TV, USA
Sally Bernier, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist WJW-TV, USA
Shane Hollett, Meteorologist WMJI-FM, USA
Steven Nogueira, NWS Senior Meteorologist, USA
Terry Eliasen, B.S. Meteorology, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Meteorologist WBZ-TV, USA
Tim Kelley, B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, Meteorologist NECN, USA
Tom Chisholm, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, Lyndon State College, Chief Meteorologist WMTW-TV, USA
John McCain? Is that joke you mean the same John McCain who graduated 894th out of 899 in his class at the US Naval Academy?
Lomborg is NOT a conservative he is a liberal! Yes we agree with Lomborg on that Global Warming is not going to be catastrophic, we are better off focusing on adaptation and Kyoto is waste of money but that does not mean we agree with him on the cause.
Please, Ron Baily wrote: Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death
George Bush!!! Are you serious? In case you have not noticed or are completely out of touch with reality his approval ratings are in the toilet for a reason and capitulating to the sham science of man-made global warming is not going to help him.
That has to be the most pathetic attempt to use propaganda against people who actually do research. I am not against man-made global warming because of any political reasons it is because the science to prove it doesn't exist!!
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Is ignoring the right on climate change right?
October 23, 2007 - 21:44 ET by BlindSight1. PT, I'm sorry, but you have completely missed my point - which was that Noel "consistently paints such a one-sided picture of the debate by ignoring those on the right who think that Gore is basically right in saying that there is a real and serious problem, even if they disagree on the appropriate policy approach".
I think I have clearly demonstrated that there are prominent and indeed credible people on the right who agree that AGW is a real and serious problem, even if they disagree on the appropriate policy approach. As I noted, this is very easy to do - but why does the agreement by important parts of the right get ignored here? You might want to write off these people, but you can't deny that they are prominent voices on the right.
How can you call my drawing attention to these people "propaganda"? Is it information that is incorrect or mis-stated?
Or is it simply another "inconvenient truth" that does not fit into your worldview - that only evil lefties (who want to destroy the US economy and enslave all mankind) are the ones pushing a "made up" climate change agenda, and are even manufacturing fake facts, like accelerating rises in amospheric CO2, dramatic warming in the Arctic and West Antarctic, melting of the Arctic ice cap, accelerated melting of Greenland, steady shift of growing season, and pH changes in the oceans?
2. Ken Green has not provided one piece of evidence for the points you highlighted. Is this the same Ken Green that is a shill for Exxon? Make up your mind.
I cited Ken Green show what his OPINION is, NOT to demonstrate that he's RIGHT. If you disagree with him, why don't you take it up with him and AEI? They are both prominently right-wing and I'm sure they're accessible. But given their prominent engagement on the global warming issue, I am sure they are extremely reluctant to move from arguing science to arguing policy and that they are doing so ONLY because they find the science sufficiently convincing and troubling. Excuse me if I find THEM more credible than you, or whoever you want to trot out.
BTW, have I ever said that Ken or AEI are shills for Exxon? Or is that something that YOU want to say now, in order to dismiss what they are now saying? (Or are you saying this simply because you are convinced that, because I agree with people like this on the right, I must be a leftist LIBERAL?)
3. Am I right that meteorologists specialize in announcing what the weather is going to be, and not on studying how climate changes? As for your list of "Scientists Disputing "Man-Made" Global Warming Theory", let me note first that there is no single "man-made" global warming theory, but a very open field filled with many scientists trying to understand many partso of our exceptionally complex climate. All of them have different knowledge and views.
Many of those who you list, especially those who are would definitely agree that man's GHG emissions and albedo changes are influencing the climate and the oceans. Many of the other ones you mention are not practicing scientists or do not actually study climate change.
4. Are you trying to say that John McCain is stupid and therefor whatever opinion he has on climate change should be ignored? Again, I mention him and Lomborg simply to show their views; it's up to you to discredit them. Sorry, but I hadn't noticed that Lomborg is a liberal - but are you implying that because he's a liberal, his views on the climate science must be wrong?
5. Yes, I noticed that Ron Bailey has radically changed his tune. That's why, when I mentioned him, I very deliberately noted the prior CEI "Eco-Myths" book that he had edited. Funny how you didn't notice that, isn't it? But more to the point, it must have been very difficult for Bailey to change his mind, despite his extremely skeptical public positions. What do you suppose accounted for his willingness to accept the egg in his face - was he honestly convinced by the growing evidence, was he bought off by Gore or has he simply gone barking mad?
6. Again, I mentioned Pres. Bush in order to show what his views ARE, not to prove that he's correct. Are you trying to imply that Pres. Bush has accepted the climate change evidence solely as a cynical ploy to burnish his ratings?
7. Finally, I have not used any propaganda in my post at all, much less any directed "against people who actually do research". But since you bring that up, can you clarify matters by identifying which scientists on your list actually do any climate research (viz., something published in a science journal any time in the past 10 years or so)?
Regards,
The Blind One
"Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people." Pres. George Bush
Weak Propaganda
October 24, 2007 - 01:31 ET by PopularTechBS what you are trying to do is make this a political issue which it is not, it is a scientific issue. You are hoping to sway people who do not do research by finding "politically" right wing positions supporting Gore - which is propaganda. Sorry it will not work here.
Don't spout off crap that Noel is painting a one-sided picture to the debate when that is his whole argument for what the media is doing! You should know better but I suspect alterior motives. Obviously all his posts are going to be about what the Liberal Media is not telling us that is the whole point of this site! Are you that delusional?
You haven't demonstrated anything we do not know and the majority of your examples are weak or are not even conservatives, libertarians are not right-wing and Lomborg most definitely is not. All of which is irrelevant to the SCIENTIFIC debate.
One of the whole arguments made here is that climate science is being decided by politics while you seem concerned we are not focusing more on the political positions? That is propaganda. If you claim ignorance on this as your intent then you prove yourself a fool.
None of the people you listed are "prominent voices of the right" not even Bush anymore. So you strike out again. You had to dig up libertarians and tried to bring in Lomborg but got caught because you did not even research his political affilliation.
HA,HA, you tried to use Ken Green as an example but as with your proven lack of research failed to see that he is labeled a Shill for Exxon by alarmists. So what is he the great voice of reason on the right or a shill for Exxon? You cannot have it both ways - I never claimed you said this I want to know. Because if you state he is not a shill then you automaticaly denouce by concession what I linked in the article.
Of course you ignore everyone I list as credible even though they have Ph.D.s in scientific fields. What could they know? Looks like you are the one with "an iconvenient truth" you do not want to deal with.
Stating that a scientist admits that CO2 can influence the climate in a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% way is not admiting to Gore's doomsday. But your continued propaganda only works on those who do not know better.
You mean meteorologists which includes ones like: Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology, who are claimed to be "climate experts" by alarmists? So if you want to start discrediting who can make a statement about climateology based on your standards lets get started so I can write off all the outspoken alarmists scientists one at a time. But see your propaganda points work only with the uninformed. I've had these debates already.
Damn right I am saying John McCain was a poor student and his opinion on climate science is irrelevant.
Oh ok so now only the ones you got caught listing as "right-wing" you did for their views? Please sell that to someone else. I stated clearly my position on Lomborg read it again.
Ron Bailey? Please, Ron Bailey is a libertarian, people who declare themselves libertarians also believe in illegal immigration, same-sex marriage ect... So please do not call him right wing. Simply because he is easily swayed by politicized science and is incapable of actually reading what is written is meaningless. But look here, he is Reason's Magazine's science editor yet has a B.A. in Philosophy and Economics? You have to do better than that.
If President Bush is accepting man-made global warming as fact then yes he is doing so because he "thinks" it will improve his poll ratings. He is desperately trying to save them.
They all do Scientific Research. Here are some examples:
Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L15707, 2007)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell, John R. Christy, Justin Hnilo
Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 82, Issue 3, pp. 417–432, March 2001)
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, and Arthur Y. Hou
Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?
(Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology,v. 50, no. 2, p. 297-327, June 2002)
- C. R. de Freitas
Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
(Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
- Richard S. Lindzen
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, Apil 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 439-468, 1 September 1999)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon
Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, 1 November 2003)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L03710, 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
Reply to comment by Huybers on ‘‘Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance’
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L20715, 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on ‘‘Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance’’
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L20714, 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
Estimating future sea level changes from past records
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 40, Issues 1-2, Pages 49-54, January 2004)
- Nils-Axel Mörner
New perspectives for the future of the Maldives
(Global and Planetary Change, v. 40, iss. 1-2, p. 177-182. 2004)
- Nils-Axel Momer, Michael Tooley, Goran Possnert
Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle
(Geoscience Canada, Volume 32, Number 1, March 2005)
- Ján Veizer
Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?
(GSA Volume 13, Issue 7, July 2003)
- Nir J. Shaviv, Ján Veizer
Cosmic rays and Earth's climate
(Space Science Review 93: 155-166, 2000)
- Henrik Svensmark
Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate
(Space Science Reviews, v. 94, Issue 1/2, p. 215-230, 2000)
- Nigel Marsh, Henrik Svensmark
Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges
(Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 48 Issue 1 Page 1.18-1.24, February 2007)
- Henrik Svensmark
Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate
(Physical Review Letters - November 30, 1998 - Volume 81, Issue 22, pp. 5027-5030)
- Henrik Svensmark
Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development
(Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, Vol 49 No 2, Pages 32–44, June 2007)
- W J R Alexander, F Bailey, D B Bredenkamp, A van der Merwe, N Willemse
Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays
(Phys. Rev. Lett., 85(23), 5004-5007, 2000)
- Nigel D Marsh, Henrik Svensmark
On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 110, A08105, 2005)
- Nir J. Shaviv
Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich – The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing
(Danish National Space Center Scientific Report, 3/2007)
- H. Svensmark, E.Friis-Christensen
The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays
(physics/0612145v1, 2006)
- Henrik Svensmark
Variation of Cosmic Ray Flux and Global Cloud Coverage - a Missing Link in Solar-Climate Relationships
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 59, 1225-1232, 1997)
- Henrik Svensmark, Eigil Friis-Christensen
Variable
solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in
the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L16712, 2005)
- Willie W.-H. Soon
What do we really know about the Sun-climate connection?
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 20, Issue 4-5, p. 913-921, 1997)
- Eigil Friis-Christensen, Henrik Svensmark
A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data
(CR 26:159-173, 2004)
- Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L13208, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence
(Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 31, L13207, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels
Differential trends in tropical sea surface and atmospheric temperatures since 1979
(Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 28, NO. 1, PAGES 183–186, 2001)
- Christy, J.R., D.E. Parker, S.J. Brown, I. Macadam, M. Stendel, W.B. Norris
Documentation of uncertainties and biases associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change assessment.
(Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88:6, 913-928, 2007)
- Pielke Sr., R.A. J. Nielsen-Gammon, C. Davey, J. Angel, O. Bliss, N.
Doesken, M. Cai., S. Fall, D. Niyogi, K. Gallo, R. Hale, K.G. Hubbard,
X. Lin, H. Li, S. Raman
Does a Global Temperature Exist?
(Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, June 2006)
- Christopher Essex, Ross McKitrick, Bjarne Andresen
Estimation
and representation of long-term (>40 year) trends of
Northern-Hemisphere-gridded surface temperature: A note of caution
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L03209, 2004)
- Willie W.-H. Soon, David R. Legates, Sallie L. Baliunas
Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?
(Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)
- Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo