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. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
-
October 21, 2007 - 20:37 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 - 21:13 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 - 05:37 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 - 07:52 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 - 10:55 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 - 11:42 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 - 13:13 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 - 21:35 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 - 22:21 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 - 22:16 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 21, 2007 - 23:14 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 - 22:27 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 - 22:49 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 21, 2007 - 23:27 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 - 00:21 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 - 01:18 ET by wiwf:D!
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Seeing life's too short to
October 22, 2007 - 04:27 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 - 06:38 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 - 06:42 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 - 07:43 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 - 07:20 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 - 07:22 ET by BadgermikeThat is one error every 2 minutes 40 seconds. I am shocked.
Can you imagine the amount
October 22, 2007 - 08:23 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 - 08:39 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 - 08:41 ET by Cool ArrowI think the mountain is about to blow!!
We have bigger problems than Global Warming ...
October 22, 2007 - 09:37 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 - 10:00 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 - 09:50 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 - 11:02 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 - 11:21 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 - 11:27 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 - 12:18 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 - 12:30 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 - 02:09 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 - 07:39 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 - 20:44 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 - 00:31 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
Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D06102, 2007)
- John R. Christy, William B. Norris, Roy W. Spencer, Justin J. Hnilo
What may we conclude about global tropospheric temperature trends?
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L06211, 2004)
- Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris
Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
(EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Society, Vol 80, page 183-187, April 20, 1999)
- S. Fred Singer
Measurement-based estimation of the spatial gradient of aerosol radiative forcing
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, L11813, 2006)
- Toshihisa Matsui, Roger A. Pielke Sr.
Misdefining ‘‘climate change’’: consequences for science and action
(Environmental Science & Policy, Volume 8, Issue 6, Pages 548-561, December 2005)
- Roger A. Pielke, Jr.
Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisal
(Energy and Environment, Vol. 14, Issues 2 & 3, April 11, 2003)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Craig Idso, David R. Legates
The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, NO. 18, PAGES 2319–2322, 1997)
- David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis
The Ever-Changing Climate System: Adapting to Challenges
(Cumberland Law Review, 36 No. 3, 493-504, 2006)
- Christy, J.R.
So much for your propaganda.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
PS, is there a working marketplace in the atmosphere?
October 24, 2007 - 21:14 ET by BlindSightThanks for your diligent hard work in responding to my "weak" points!
1. Climate change is BOTH a political and a scientific issue. It is a political issue not because the "warmers" are necessarily right, but because they have opinions, values and personal interests that they cannot give voice to through the marketplace - as there is no marketplace relating to the atmosphere.
And what do history and economic theory both tell us about what happens to resources that aren't owned? There is simply no feedback mechanism at work that will moderate our impact on climate - even though of course the changing climate itself is driving changes in our behavior.
I am NOT trying to neatly side-step the issue of what the science is - rather, I'm just trying to make clear that those who worry about climate change are not wrong because they're leftists, as there are plenty of others who agree with them.
We need to face this straight on, as Bush's own Forest Service chief notes that climate change is responsible for the fact that fire seasons are continually lengthening:
http://www.signonsan...
2. I am perfectly aware that Noel keeps arguing that the media is one-sided, but if he wants to make that argument then he should be prepared for the same criticism. If everyone is aware that he's being deliberately one-sided, then it shouldn't really trouble anyone when I point it out, right?
You essentially argue that Noel's purely partisan perspective - one that ignores that various inconvenient persons who are NOT liberal also do not agree with him - is the best way to see the truth - but that's clearly both wrong. Neither the truth nor the science are partisan. Noel is not merely trying to provide counterweight on the policy side - which is perfectly fair and I support, but trying to use politics to discredit science. I'm "delusional" enough to see that that doesn't work, and there is no "alterior"(?) motive in pointing it out.
3. While I agree that politics per se is not relevant to the pure scientific debate, unfortunately most of us are not climate scientists. As a result, we all have to try to weigh the credibility of others. In that respect, it is certainly helpful for non-experts in coming to grips with complex matters on controversial issues if knowledgeable persons across the spectrum share agreement on basic matters. This is especially so when the people in agreement are not on the fringe but in the mainstream, like Bush and AEI. It is for this reason that those on the right trot out a clearly mistaken Cockburn, or a Lomborg they suppose to be liberal. I do not see Bush, AEI or McCain to be so clearly wrong and the fact that they - after much study - support Gore's view of the climate change science (even as they disagree on policy) is quite useful in figuring out who is right.
4. I fully expected that you would do your best to discredit those on the right - and others, like Bailey and Lomborg, who the so-called skeptics have used to support their case - who disagree with you. It is quite inconvenient, no? But they aren't going away, just like climate change is not.
Good job attacking President Bush, and McCain before him. Are you telling me that Bush is dishonest and McCain is stupid (or the other way around)? I hardly wish to disagree with you, but I think you're being unfair. While both are politicians, this doesn't mean that they don't have any honestly held beliefs, even about scientific matters that may gravely affect our society. Of course, they may be very interested in enhancing their own influence and credibility - isn't it funny that they think they can do that best by agreeing with Gore on the science?
Nice dodge on AEI and Green - are you trying to tell me that they have no credibility on the science too? I have already said that I am not a leftist and haven't called Green a shill for Exxon, and of course I am well aware that others have - I even traded emails with him over that. My own view is that while AEI wasn't a shill, they failed to promote any useful policies despite essentially agreeing all along with Gore that climate change is a serious problem. With the latest IPCC report almost finally in, Green and AEI are simply regretting that they painted themselves into a corner of relative irrelevancy and are struggling to be heard again - after 6+ years of being good sports and keeping their trap shut. And they realize that they will be completely ignored if they continue to pretend that nothing's up with the climate, that we have nothing to do with it or that everything will remain peachy as GHG emissions look like they'll double if not triple further.
If you or others want to cite Lomborg on his policies it's perfectly appropropriate to bring up his views on the science.
Your slam on Ron Bailey - formerly of "Global Warming is and Eco-Myth" fame - as being "easily swayed by politicized science and is incapable of actually reading what is written" hardly rings true. Yes, the man's a rationalist and libertarian. If only more of us were! (Ron did support the Iraq war, BTW.) He has written the most lucid posts on climate change, informed by both science and the economic underpinnings of "tragedy of the commons" situations. The fact that he has quite publicly changed his mind is not a sign that he's easily swayed - after all, he's years behind others - but that he's got the honesty to admit he's wrong and to change his mind if the facts support the AGW view.
Another one with the guts to change his mind is Michael Schermer, the master "Skeptic", BTW.
You, however, keep tripping over yourself by assuming that I know nothing about Green or Bailey, totally missing when I've already provided facts that you later come up with, and can't stand to admit you are wrong. Can't ever admit even a small error? Sorry, but that doesn't boost your credibility.
5. Thanks for your long list of articles, largely by a few such as Christy, Pielke, McKittrick and Lindzen, who really do not dispute that climate change is occuring or that humans are making a substantial contribution. Take them away, and you have a long list (your first list) of mostly aging scientists with a very short list of publications who are acting as pundits rather than as scientists, and others who advance various (and often mutually inconsistent) theories of other forcing factors without discrediting GHGs and albedo (Svensmark, Veizer and Shaviv).
I do appreciate the list though and will take a closer look.
Regards,
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
Continued Propaganda
October 25, 2007 - 00:58 ET by PopularTechNo Climate Change is a SCIENTIFIC issue period. Politics has nothing to do with Science though Gore thinks differently. Science is not decided by vote.
Resource ownership has nothing to do with anything you were talking about and you again drag it into every conversation you make on this.
You have made no such point that it is not entirely a leftist movement when ALL your examples are from people who have supported leftist positions! McCain + Bush both support Amnesty so do libertarians. Therefore your whole point is destoyed. Calling yourself a Republican or Conservative does not make you so, only through your actions does this come about.
You pointing out what is obvious to anyone with half a brain makes you come off like an idiot. If this site is to expose liberal bias and you complain that is all he doing what does that make you look like?
The people you point out are not remotely right-wing or conservative. Bush maybe fiscally conservative but that is it.
Noel has not used Politics to discredit science. He points out hypocrisy in the liberal media, distortions or outright lies. Noel's only position is what the biased liberal media is not telling you. Noel has gone out of his way to use Science to argue Science and more Science to argue politicized science.
Using a political person's views who is polar opposite to anothers to confirm a scientific position is absolute insanity and in no way confirms the science of anything. Science does not need politicians to agreed with it to be correct it merely needs to be proven via the scientific method.
Lomborg and Cockburn's views are brought out when they make rational sense. I for one do not care what the political affiliation is of someone if their position makes rational sense, that does not mean simply because one of their positions I am in agreement in, I agree with all their others. For instance Lomborg is an economist and thus I take his economic opinion on Global Warming.
If you want to base your scientific understanding on John McCain or George Bush's view of it that is your loss. I would much rather base some of my economic views from Bush and some of my military views from McCain where each has some expertise.
Bailey and Lombord are not on the right. Lomborg admits this and Limbertarians are not right-wing. You can pretend they are but they are not. Libertarian's conservative fiscal policy consistently gets them confused with other right-wing issues.
Statements like "Climate Change is not going away" since it never has because climate always changes is ridiculous.
Bush is no scientific genius and I have proven that neither is McCain now if you want to go around touting either as such, good luck winning that debate. As for honesty, believing something honestly does not mean you understand it or it is the correct scientific position.
Green comes off like a liberal economist like Lomborg who want to believe GHG are causing a problem but rationally understand the observational data shows no catastrophy. So they wind up fighting their own emotions but constantly feel a need to state their emotional position even if their common sense tell them differently. Then again AEI mentioned a carbon tax so I hardly consider that a right-wing position.
The IPCC report being "in" in no way confirms anything. A politically funded and motivated report in the gise of science does not prove or disprove anything that is not how science works.
I am a computer anaylst by trade and know exactly how computer models work without understading 100% every part of the simulation = they don't. The only thing obvious to me is Green has no concept of how computer simulations work. I can make a simulation do whatever I want and it proves nothing.
Ron Bailey is another computer illiterate who doesn't understand modeling or how computers even work. Oh many Democrats supported the war too that proves nothing.
Again you have proven nothing, you brought up non right wing people some liberals, others libertarians others RINO = Republican in Name Only who are maybe only fiscally conservative (Bush) or patriotic (McCain) but surely not complete conservatives.
The even more ridiculous thing is you brought up people scorned by conservatives for supporting things like amnesty ect... and try to make the "right-wing" case. Wrong, try again.
I am not wrong on the points I made which is why there is nothing to admit.
Yet you continue your propaganda by implying scientists who say CO2 may cause ridiculously moderate and non-eventful warming of fractions of a degree over a hundred years or the warming is largely due to man-made LAND USE changes and nothing catastrophic happening as in agreement with Gore? Please stop with the propaganda.
Isn't it funny many of the older and wiser Scientists are openly speaking out against catastrophy? Do you not find that enlightening?
Do you not understand that no one has CONFIRMED that GHG are responsible for the mild warming (0.6 degrees over 100 years)? They simply cannot explain it so say it must be CO2.
Again saying GHG may play a 0.0000000000001% role in something does not make you in agreement with Gore.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
PS, AGW is NOT pure leftist propaganda; serious scientists,
October 25, 2007 - 20:57 ET by BlindSightpeople on the right, libertarians who hate big government, people in business, in religious groups and in other countries also accept it. You may be right that they are all wrong, but in the fact there is a wide and deep spectrum of them who are NOT part of "the propagandist forces in our nation seeking to undermine our very way of life".
It is fair to make this point. Noel can crusade against the leftists all he wants - it`s his bully pulpit. It`s perfectly fair of me to point out that non-leftists and others clearly not out to destroy our way of life are also concerned.
As for honesty, believing something honestly does not mean you understand it or it is the correct scientific position.
I agree. The science is the science, and has nothing to do with people`s political persuasions - why is why it is puzzling that your comments always try to discredit the political perspective of anyone who disagrees with you on the science - even if they agree with you on the policy.
The older scientists may be right, but they are often not "wiser", but simply defending their own turf, reputation and mindframe and reluctant to pick up new paradigms. That`s why they used to say something like "science progresses one death at at time". What did Thomas Schelling think, BTW?
Yes, I understand that we are conducting an uncontrolled experiment on the climate. It will be impossible to "prove" that our GHGs are responsible for any warming until it is too late to do anything about it. We can`t prove that GHGs matter by simply stopping emitting them and waiting a century or two. Thus, whether we choos to act is very much a political matter.
Pielke and Christy belief that GHGs are a significant factor (25% or so) in climate change. Try 25% vs. 0.0000000000001%.
Regards,
BlindSight
"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
More Propaganda
October 25, 2007 - 23:22 ET by PopularTech"I showed some evidence that humans are causing warming in the surface measurements that we have but it is not the greenhouse relation." - John Christy
"Global warming is not equivalent to climate change. Significant societally important climate change, due to both natural- and human- climate forcings, can occur without any global warming or cooling." - Roger Pielke
"Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur." - Roger Pielke
You are again promoting propaganda as you did when you attempted to use an AP article that took what Christy said out of context about sea-level rise.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Pielke concludes CO2 is an important forcing; sorry you
October 26, 2007 - 10:45 ET by BlindSightdidn`t know and couldn`t find it:
Note that man`s contributions via carbon black, other GHGS and other albedo changes add to the total.
As for Christy, surely you have also noted that in 2003 he reportedly said he supports the AGU declaration, is convinced that human activities are the major cause of the global warming that has been measured, though he is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels." http://www.sfgate.co...
Here`s a handy link the AGU statement, just in case:
http://www.sfgate.co...
If you don`t like this "propaganda", then maybe you should advise Pielke and Christy to keep their traps shut.
By the way, presumably you`re aware what Michaels says as well?
Always happy to help you round out your view.
Regards,
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
Unbelievable
October 29, 2007 - 07:55 ET by PopularTechYou are absolutely unbelievable. You continue to use non-quotes to push your propaganda. Christy never stated any of this....
he supports the AGU declaration, is convinced that human activities are the major cause of the global warming that has been measured
Christy believes that land use changes may have contributed to some of the warming.
Both are against catastrophic claims or regulation of human CO2 production.
Pielke is against the alarmism and the exaggerated claims of human CO2 forcing.
Always happy to clear up your propaganda.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
PT, one thing at a time
October 29, 2007 - 10:55 ET by BlindSightFirst, did Pielke say what I quoted him as saying? Yes or no.
As for Christy, did he or did he not sign the AGU declaration? Yes or no.
Physics Daily provides the following information for Christy:
http://www.physicsda...
Christy said:"It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the atmosphere and sending quantities of greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate change hasn't been increased in the past century."
Christy also said that while he supports the AGU declaration, and is convinced that human activities are the major cause of the global warming that has been measured, he is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels."
Is this propaganda, or are these fair quotes and references? Yes or no.
You say:
Christy believes that land use changes may have contributed to some of the warming. Both are against catastrophic claims or regulation of human CO2 production. Pielke is against the alarmism and the exaggerated claims of human CO2 forcing.
I agree. But what point was it that I was trying to make and that you have such a tough time following? That they both believe in AGW and think that CO2 is a significant contributor.
Pres. George Bush: "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."
Christy
November 8, 2007 - 00:59 ET by PopularTechShow me the quote of Christy's words NOT what someone wrote he said.
You are an absolute propagandist. Christy never signed any such thing! Your own source is propaganda by wording it "signed up to".
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
The Propagandist
October 29, 2007 - 07:56 ET by PopularTechI suggest your check your sources before you continue pushing your propaganda.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
REVEALED: Fuel & Mining Magnate Behind Gore Film Attack in UK
October 23, 2007 - 08:40 ET by LindainSFNMREVEALED:Fuel & Mining Magnate Behind Gore Film Attack In UK
Mon Oct 15th, 2007 at 07:53:12 AM EST
British Government released the movie, An Inconvenient Truth, to be shown in schools.
One man, Mr. Dimmock, a school Governor, challenged that in court, making of course, outrageous claims of the movie.
A Judge heard the case claiming the movie was politically biased, but it still could be shown in schools with guidlenes. And no surprise that the Republicants, FOX, Newsbusters and everyone else were trying to make so much out of-ITSELF being politically motivated. The story was reportedin mostly British papers, but the right wing papers, PACS and blogs did their best to distort the already political charge.
This outraged many, particularly in Britain, where it affects them. Teachers were asking why this was even being ruled by a Judge.
Teaching union slams Gore film ruling
Oct 12 2007 by Abbie Wightwick, Western Mail
WALES’ biggest teaching union yesterday accused a High Court Judge of acting like Big Brother by ruling a film about climate change can only be shown in schools if accompanied by new guidance notes to balance its views.
All schools and colleges in Wales were sent free copies of Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth in a programme backed by the Welsh Assembly Government earlier this year.
A High Court challenge mounted by a parent in England, which also sent out copies of the film, resulted in a ruling yesterday that the film, much acclaimed by environmentalists, could be shown in schools as part of a climate change resource pack, but only if it was accompanied by new guidance notes to balance Mr Gore’s "one-sided" views.
Last night the WAG said it was considering the ruling’s implications, although no similar complaints from parents have been made here.
"This response from the High Court in London is outrageous. It is scary. It’s like the thought police. It’s 1984 arriving in 2007," he said. "It’s a slap in the face to teachers to suggest they are incapable of chairing a mature discussion to go with showing this film.
"I don’t think it’s appropriate for a judge to say what should be taught in schools and how. The only body that could do that would be the General Teaching Council for Wales."
Now being reported that Fuel and mining magnate backed UK challenge to An Inconvenient Truth.
The school governor who challenged the screening of Al Gore's climate change documentary in secondary schools was funded by a Scottish quarrying magnate who established a controversial lobbying group to attack environmentalists' claims about global warming.
It seems they have started a political organization to attack and distort the Climate Crisis realities, making Mr. Gore's their first challenge. Much like the organizations here fueled (pun intented) by the GOP (Gas Oil Petroleum) or King CONG (Coal Oil Nukes Gas), like American Enterprise Institute, TCPR, News Busters et al.
The Observer has established that Dimmock's case was supported by a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies. He was also supported by a Conservative councillor in Hampshire, Derek Tipp.
Dimmock credited the little-known New Party with supporting him in the test case but did not elaborate on its involvement. The obscure Scotland-based party calls itself 'centre right' and campaigns for lower taxes and expanding nuclear power.
Records filed at the Electoral Commission show the New Party has received nearly all of its money - almost £1m between 2004 and 2006 - from Cloburn Quarry Limited, based in Lanarkshire.
The company's owner and chairman of the New Party, Robert Durward, is a long-time critic of environmentalists. With Mark Adams, a former private secretary to Tony Blair, he set up the Scientific Alliance, a not-for-profit body comprising scientists and non-scientists, which aims to challenge many of the claims about global warming.
It appears that Republicants and Conservanots around the world are making this issue, Global Warming and our Climate Crisis, political all by themselves. Along with other things like providing health care to chidlren-acting like a Brick Wall, just trying to stop progress and moving forward for the people and our planet.
It seems Mr. Gore will have no choice but to run for President. As Republicants and Conservanots have shown, making everything related to humanity poltical, and if these issues are to be solved, we need someone who cares about them to solve them.
ref:
http://observer.guar...
.uk/uk_news/story/0,,219077
0,00.html
http://icwales.icnet...
.uk/news/wales-news/2007/10
12/teaching-union-slams-go
re-film-ruling-91466-199401
90
http://news.bbc.co.u...
uk_news/education/7037671.s
tm
AND, MSM picked up the story TOO!!! (4.00 / 5)
I couldn't believe it, but yes, I received a an email from CBS.
Report: Mining Exec Funded Gore Film Trial
http://www.cbsnews.c...
Superman wears Al Gore pajamas.
Relevance?
October 23, 2007 - 09:01 ET by LionKingDoes it matter who initiated the action or is it more important that the judge cited 9 errors?
Typical of the liberals...let's change the focus from the errors and focus on something else. To hell with the TRUTH!!!
NO, typical of Republicants and Conservatnots
October 23, 2007 - 10:36 ET by LindainSFNMYou like to always make up your own story, regardless of the truth and facts.
And, it wasn't 9 errors, that was last week, this week Exxon, oops, I mean Newsbuster decided 35 looked much better. LOL
But the truth is, that the Judge didn't declare ANY ERRORS.
Read, if you really do care about the truth.
Last Friday, shortly after Vice President Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming, we posted an item on a recently concluded court case in Britain that questioned some of the facts in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth. We are now giving Gore's spokeswoman, Kalee Kreider, the opportunity to respond to the criticisms of the British judge. Kreider also serves as Gore's environmental adviser. You can find our original posts here and here. Verdict still pending.
The Gore response
With a column titled "Fact Checker," it is difficult not to lose the forest for the trees. First and foremost, An Inconvenient Truth presented thousands and thousands of facts. We stand by our initial statement. We were gratified that a UK High Court judge, a layperson with a full docket, found the film worthy enough to be shown in British schools. A generation of schoolchildren will become more educated about global warming and what can be done to solve the climate crisis.
A number of other broader points need to be addressed from the Fact Checker's last two postings:
The judge himself never used the term "errors." That was an allegation made by the plaintiff--whose motives are quite suspect. Stewart Dimmock, who brought this case, appears to have been funded by the very same fossil fuel interests who have sought to undermine the scientific consensus behind global warming in the past. The Observer has reported that he was funded by mining interests as well as the Scientific Alliance, an industry-backed non-profit with links to other groups in the U.S. like the U.S. based George C. Marshall Institute which has received funding from Exxon. This was also reported in the U.S. Our experience is that when the vested interests do not like the message, they tend to use diversionary tactics to create uncertainty or to fund individuals and groups to shoot the messenger. In this instance, it appears they are trying to do both. According to these reports, Mr. Dimmock will still not fully reveal who funded the case.
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. Vice President Gore has studied this issue for over 30 years. He regularly seeks the advice and feedback of scientists to understand the latest research. It's not easy, even for Ph.D.'s, to explain the concept of the "non-linearity" of the climate system even after decades in their respective fields. Imagine trying to translate that complicated scientific evidence into a clear and compelling message with only a single slide and 20 seconds to make your case. It isn't simple. In many cases, particular points had to be truncated and shortened from the original research. A movie inherently cannot reflect the depth of the science as the 3 volumes of the IPCC and other sources from which it draws. The original science cannot speak to moviegoers. And, as is not made clear by the Fact Checker, the judge stated clearly that he was not attempting to perform "an analysis of the scientific questions" in his ruling.
Former Vice President Gore does not solely rely upon the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As many know, the IPCC operates on a consensus driven process requiring the approval of all governments involved. As a result, its findings are often believed to be conservative. In addition, new science is published every week in top journals such as Science, Nature, Eos and others. Some scientists predict more extreme consequences and some predict more conservative effects, but Vice President Gore tried to convey in good faith those threats that he views as the most serious. Although we commend the Fact Checker for looking to the IPCC, Mr. Gore relies upon other highly credible sources as well.
Since the Fact Checker has afforded us the opportunity to respond specifically to the nine points at issue, we will do so.
Ice-sheet driven sea level rise. Scientists agree that the melting of Greenland or the West Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea levels around six meters. The movie does not give a timescale for when that melting might occur. There are uncertainties in the scientific community about the timescale, but this uncertainty does not negate the need to seriously consider these scenarios when considering solutions to the climate crisis. IPCC estimates a sea level rise of 59 centimeters by 2100. However, they exclude any water contributed by the melting of Greenland or Antarctica because they don't know when either could happen. We hold our fate in our own hands. If we conclude a strong treaty--or if we pass strong legislation in the US to cut the pollution that causes global warming, it could make a real difference to our future and that of our children. Dr. Jim Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and someone whom we trust, has said that we may see several meters of sea level rise by 2100 if we do not act.
Pacific island nations needing to evacuate. On December 6, 2005, The United Nations Environment Program announced that a small community living in the Pacific island chain of Vanuatu had to relocate due to sea level rise. In addition, in 2005, the people of the Carteret atoll in Papua New Guinea announced their imminent evacuation and the government of Tuvalu has asked New Zealand to be ready to evacuate islanders. We acknowledge that the wording of the film here is unfortunate; however, the potential effects of global warming on human displacement as a broader topic is a matter of critical importance, which we believe warrants the attention of the global community. The IPCC estimates that 150 million environmental refugees could exist by the year 2050, due mainly to the effects of coastal flooding, shoreline erosion and agricultural disruption.
Ocean Conveyor in the North Atlantic. Simulations described in the latest IPCC report show a slowdown in the circulation by roughly 30 percent by 2100. Again, there are uncertainties, which were a bit lengthy to describe in a feature film documentary, but the future of the ocean conveyer really depends upon how quickly we take actions now to reduce the pollution that causes global warming. Multiple scientists have claimed that we cannot exclude the possibility of the disruption or shutdown of the Conveyor.
CO2 Temperature connections in the ice core record. Greenhouse gas levels and temperature changes in the ice age signals have a complicated relationship but they do "fit." That is true. There is a much longer explanation. Rather than repeat it here, I will refer you to the more complete description included in the archive of www.realclimate.org.
Kilimanjaro. Mr. Gore has, for years, relied upon the research of Dr. Lonnie Thompson and his wife Dr. Ellen Mosely Thompson. Dr. Thompson recently received the National Medal of Science and works at the Byrd Polar Research Center. It is not just Kilimanjaro. Every tropical glacier for which we have documented evidence shows that glaciers are retreating. The evidence has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science (2006) as well as IPCC studies. As the movie states, there are other stresses on Kilimanjaro that are contributing to the problem. And this is a very, very important point--fundamental to our understanding of climate change: Global warming exacerbates the stresses that ecosystems (and humans) are already experiencing, such as drought, erosion, rising sea levels, and shifts in extreme weather events.
Drying up of Lake Chad. This example is used to illustrate what the models are predicting which is the shift in rainfall across the Sahel region of Africa. As in the previous example, there are multiple stresses upon Lake Chad and again, human-induced climate change can and will make this situation even worse.
Hurricane Katrina and global warming. The film is careful not to ascribe any single weather event to climate change. However, in the film Mr. Gore does state, "There have been warnings that hurricanes would get stronger." He based that claim on research published in peer-reviewed journals from Dr. Kerry Emanuel, and several others, who have found a link between an increase in sea surface temperature and an increase in the intensity of hurricanes. Since then, further research has strengthened the science in this area with regards to a link between human-induced climate change and hurricane intensity. Mr. Gore has never addressed the issue of climate change and hurricane frequency.
Impact of sea ice retreat on polar bears. Polar bears only exist in the Arctic and hunt and live on the ice. Where there is not enough ice, they are required to swim. The US Minerals Management Service (part of the US Department of Interior) reported new research in December 2005 about increased polar bear mortality due to reduced sea ice. At the same time, a study by the US Geological Survey and the Canadian Wildlife Service was previewed showing a major polar bear population drop (22 percent) in Hudson Bay in Canada--which was also believed to be linked to sea ice decline. Since 2005, more research has emerged in this area. In addition, Arctic sea ice decline was the lowest ever measured for minimum extent in 2007. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is now considering an Endangered Species Listing for the polar bear in part because of the impact that human-induced climate change is having on their habitat.
Global warming and coral reefs. The IPCC and other scientific bodies have long identified increases in ocean temperatures with the bleaching of coral reefs. Corals are also under stress from other factors like water pollution (agricultural runoff), overfishing, and ocean acidification (another direct impact of the release of carbon dioxide). These stresses have a synergistic effect. As I have made clear earlier, global warming places a further strain on an already burdened ecosystem.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/an_inconvenient_truth_team_gor_1.html#more
Superman wears Al Gore pajamas.
More Propaganda
October 24, 2007 - 00:44 ET by PopularTechLets just smash one of your propaganda points first...
Al Gore 'Debates' Global Warming (Video) (9min)
CO2 & temperature: ice core correlations (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Harvard)
CO2 lags Temperature changes:
Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations
(Science, Vol. 283. no. 5408, pp. 1712 - 1714, 12 March 1999)
- Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni, Bruce Deck
QUOTE
"High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide
concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ±
400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations."
Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
(Science 14, Vol. 299. no. 5613, March 2003)
- Nicolas Caillon, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Jean Jouzel, Jean-Marc Barnola, Jiancheng Kang, Volodya Y. Lipenkov
QUOTE
"The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2
increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and
preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation."
Ooops looks like RealClimate's pathetic and ridiculous post on the issue cannot help here since they admit the lag exists but claim that while they do not know what caused the warming of the first 600-1000 years they are certain the remainder was caused by CO2! Uh-huh - Please, of course they also failed to explain how their CO2 non-theory caused it to get colder again.
Wait but there is more....
Carbon Dioxide Did Not End The Last Ice Age, Study Says (Science Daily)
So much for the CO2 drives climate theory.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Linda
October 29, 2007 - 08:14 ET by Cool ArrowHas it occurred to you that the Antarctic may be considerably larger than you are presenting it?
Is it not possible a shrinking habitat may even be beneficial to the Polar Bear gene pool. I know you saw the sad little picture of the supposedly distraught Polar Bear the greenies used as a poster until it was discovered to be a total misrepresentation of reality, and legally misappropriated.
But you're sitting in Santa Fe somewhere amongst your collection of holistic healing chrystals with "Trial of Billy Jack" running a continuous loop on your bovine excrement powered BetaMax player.
Mescaline anyone?