WSJ: Al Gore Skips Agreed to Newspaper Interview With Danish Skeptic

By Warner Todd Huston (Bio | Archive)
January 21, 2007 - 11:35 ET

Proving that Al Gore isn't interested in any dispassionate investigation or debate about global Warming, Gore perpetrated a last minute disappearing act and skipped an interview with the biggest Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten, that was set up months in advance.

Flemming Rose, the Jyllands-Posten culture editor, penned an interesting expose of Gore's ducking out on the Wall Street journal's Opinion Journal site today taking the former VP to task. How many other papers do you think will mention Gore's cowardice?

Bet, few... if not no... others do.

Al Gore is traveling around the world telling us how we must fundamentally change our civilization due to the threat of global warming. Last week he was in Denmark to disseminate this message. But if we are to embark on the costliest political project ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best facts, not just the convenient ones. This was the background for the biggest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to set up an investigative interview with Mr. Gore. And for this, the paper thought it would be obvious to team up with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," who has provided one of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore's tune.

Gee, Al. If you are so sure of your "facts" what is so outrageous with a little adult debate in front of a newspaper editor? It isn't like you were invited onto the Jerry Springer show or some other lowgrade venue, after all.

But, wait... NOW I can see why Gore didn't want to act like a man sure of himself. It's because he would have faced some hard questions about his ideas.

However, the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore's path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.

In response, all Gore has is zealotry and wild-eyed alarmism, so he has nothing logical or well thought out with which to respond to such a question.

Mr Rose has a just a few examples of Gore's misrepresentations and lies in the Wall Street journal piece:

  • Gore says global warming has increased malaria in Nairobi, but the World Health Organization says the country is considered malaria free, unlike in the 1920's and 30's when it had epidemics regularly.
  • Gore says that Antarctica is melting and presents picture to "prove" it, but those pictures are from only 2 percent of Antarctica whereas 98 percent of the continent has actually COOLED over the last 35 years.
  • Gore says seas will rise 20 feet, but the U.N. climate panel only thinks it will be 1 foot. Also seas rose only 1 foot over the last 150 years already with little real trouble world wide.
  • Gore says the heat of global warming will kill "2,000" people in the U.K., but freezing temperatures will kill 20,000 more without such "warming". Why are the 2,000 killed by warming more important than the 20,000 who would be killed by freezing?

Yes, it's no wonder that Gore doesn't want to address the hilarity of his absurd claims. The editors of Jyllands-Posten should be happy that he skipped the interview he once agreed to. Dying from laughing is much worse than buying it from global warming!

More globaloney from Al Gore. But no real facts, sadly.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Gore

January 21, 2007 - 11:59 ET by iveseenitall

No surprise here. A third grader could destroy this moron in a argument concerning "global warming". The guy's using the global warming canard to make millions. And it's working for him with the liberals in the press and elsewhere. But if you want an intelligent "debate",  it's always "Algore has left the building."

NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal

It aslo points up the fact th

January 21, 2007 - 17:10 ET by mattm

It aslo points up the fact that for Libs there is no further debate on any issue.  They need not prove anything they say, thus, they don't have to debate or listen to other ideas.  This gives them license to ridicule the morons, dolts and backwards idiots that don't fall in line with their ideology.  Yet, they hypocritically claim the high ground on open-mindedness.  It's pathological.

Assignment Desk, NYT - "

January 21, 2007 - 12:02 ET by FastEd

Assignment Desk, NYT - "Do we print this story about algore?" Follow-up questin, "They TOLD me there was no such thing as a dumb question".

Newsweek editors desk - "So, you think this has some merit? Good, do a follow-up research in Afghanistan, then check out Siberia. A 1000 words describing how warm it can get".

msm video editors - "No pictures, no story!"

There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad

Some more debunking here an

January 21, 2007 - 12:03 ET by DontFeedTheTrolls

Some more debunking here and here and here.

DSG

Great links.. thanks

January 21, 2007 - 12:32 ET by rimsky

Great links.. thanks

Thanks for the links

January 21, 2007 - 15:13 ET by Grammy

Thanks a bunch. I found a few links there that I plan to explore.

I have four questions that I always ask the devout followers of The Church of Global Warming. Chalked up lots of aspersions aimed at me and my parents, but never an attempt at an answer.

1. The 'globe' is a vast complex system. How can science be certain they know every contributor to global climate; know they have weighted properly every component; and have accounted for every possible permutation of the interactions.

2. I understand that no clobal climate modeling has never been able to predict the known from the known and has never been accurate even in short term predictions much less the known to the unknown. If there is such modeling, where is it and how many accurate predictions can it account for.

3. If the answers to my first two questions are yes you have convinced me. If not, upon what do you base your belief that any will be accurate just this one time looking into the future for fifty to a hundred years.

4. Do you support the current trend to stifle scientific study that looks into if, including the possibility that Global Cooling could be an option. Or do you support the demonization of those scientists who may find different results and ban their work.

Still waiting for an answer.  These GW zealots are the new infallible religion of the left.  Scary and potentially very dangerous.
.

Thanks for the links

January 21, 2007 - 15:15 ET by Grammy

Thanks a bunch. I found a few links there that I plan to explore.

I have four questions that I always ask the devout followers of The Church of Global Warming. Chalked up lots of aspersions aimed at me and my parents, but never an attempt at an answer.

1. The 'globe' is a vast complex system. How can science be certain they know every contributor to global climate; know they have weighted properly every component; and have accounted for every possible permutation of the interactions.

2. I understand that no clobal climate modeling has never been able to predict the known from the known and has never been accurate even in short term predictions much less the known to the unknown. If there is such modeling, where is it and how many accurate predictions can it account for.

3. If the answers to my first two questions are yes you have convinced me. If not, upon what do you base your belief that any will be accurate just this one time looking into the future for fifty to a hundred years.

4. Do you support the current trend to stifle scientific study that looks into if, including the possibility that Global Cooling could be an option. Or do you support the demonization of those scientists who may find different results and ban their work.

Still waiting for an answer.  These GW zealots are the new infallible religion of the left.  Scary and potentially very dangerous.
.

Sorry, I had a brain disfun

January 21, 2007 - 15:17 ET by Grammy

Sorry, I had a brain disfunction and posted twice.

You lost most Global Warmin

January 21, 2007 - 22:28 ET by lnthomp

You lost most Global Warming Alarmists when you hit the word "complex". Any that make past that, get lost halfway through the second question because the only effect they believe in is GLOBAL WARMING and the only cause they believe in that leads to that effect is HUMAN ACTIVITY.

Lee T.

U.S. Navy (ret.) / Hillsboro, Oregon

I have enough money to last me the rest of my life. Unless I buy something.

A little real-life evidence to support Grammy

January 21, 2007 - 22:40 ET by nkviking75

Here in North Central Iowa we've had two moderately heavy snow events on successive Sundays.  I watched the forecasts in the days leading up to each of the storms, and I can tell you they didn't get it right until the storm was practically on top of us.  Why would anyone believe they can tell us what will happen over a century?

NK,Why do you think we're so

January 21, 2007 - 22:50 ET by Blonde

NK,

Why do you think we're so pleased with the Weather Guessers in Florida?

Run from that hurricane!!!

Sheesh.

A theory on weather forecasting

January 21, 2007 - 22:58 ET by nkviking75

If I were the conspiracy theory type, I'd suspect that hurricane forecasters know what the storms will do, but deliberately muddle the forecasts to drive up suspense and TV ratings.  Also, the late storms in 2005 were meant to hype the Weather Channel for sweeps month in November.

Then I'd put on my tinfoil hat and run naked through the snow.

Glad I'm not that type.  :-)

Algore likes to describe hims

January 21, 2007 - 12:15 ET by rimsky

Algore likes to describe himself as being the former next POTUS. And no doubt he gets some laughs from the audiences that he plays to. He is truly a Snake Oil salesman. We may indeed be experiencing GW, but it is just as likely (more so IMO) that it is only part of natural global cycles as compared to it being caused by humans.

Former next POTUS, and still

January 21, 2007 - 12:25 ET by Galvanic

Former next POTUS, and still the reigning PUTZ.

Like Gore, Prof. Lomborg is n

January 21, 2007 - 12:22 ET by Galvanic

Like Gore, Prof. Lomborg is not a climatologist.  He is a statistician, and herein lies his edge over Gore in the global warming debate.  Lomborg's professional career has been devoted to analysing data holistically, challenging assumptions, asking questions, exploring trends, and developing assessments.  As he points out in his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" --- in which he devotes an entire chapter specifically to the mounds of data on global warming ---  not only have the GW-gurus exaggerated the trends of the negative data, they've totally ignored the positive factors (For example, warmer climates means longer growing seasons resulting in more food) .  Lomborg's grasp of all the data and what that data really tells us, is a standing and formidable threat to the hyperbole and rage of Prince Albert, who has already shut out and marginalized opposition voices by declaring that "the debate is over."

That hits on one of the point

January 22, 2007 - 11:59 ET by taznar

That hits on one of the points I keep trying to make -who decided that climate change was bad and how did they come to this conclusion? If you go by the best science available, climate change been happening since the earth was formed and climate change has been a huge driving force in evolution.

Has anyone asked Gore how he was able to determine the best climate for humans, much less all life on the planet, is that of the pre-industrialized world?

The American Meteorological Society

January 22, 2007 - 16:41 ET by Shadesofgray

This is from the American Meteorological Society policy page on global warming.  They say global warming is increased by human activity,  will get worse in the future, and I emailed Keith L. Seitter (kseitter@ametsoc.org), the Executive Director to make sure this is still the AMS stance.  He said that while there are naysayers like James Spann (earlier NB thread), the "overwhelming majority of the scientific community is in agreement"...with the global warming crowd." I know, meteorologists are a bunch of liberals. 

Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related Sciences

(Adopted by AMS Council on 9 February 2003)
Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 84, 508—515

  --->

Executive Summary

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change. Several national and international studies published in 2001 have provided reviews and assessments of the science of climate change. A National Research Council report concluded that "[g]reenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. . . . The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability" (National Research Council 2001a). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that recent regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases, have already affected many physical and biological systems (McCarthy et al. 2001), and a national assessment on climate change impacts on the United States concluded that "natural ecosystems, which are our life support system in many ways, appear to be the most vulnerable to the harmful effects of climate change," but, "highly managed ecosystems appear more robust" (National Assessment Synthesis Team 2001).

The report by the IPCC stated that the global mean temperature is projected to increase by 1.4°C-5.8°C in the next 100 years (Houghton et al. 2001). Uncertainties remain in several key aspects, including the magnitude, timing, and regional distribution of anticipated climate change.

Because human activities are contributing to climate change, we have a collective responsibility to develop and undertake carefully considered response actions. The fundamental challenge is to understand and respond to the risk represented by climate change in the larger context of overall societal issues and environmental stresses. Development of effective response strategies requires a holistic approach, in which the natural and social sciences, in tandem with technology and engineering, proceed side by side in a broad multidisciplinary effort. The federal agencies involved are now organized under a presidential initiative that mandates cooperative activities in climate change research and climate change technology (U.S. Climate Change Science Program 2002).

No it means Keith L. Seitter

January 22, 2007 - 17:38 ET by danbo

No it means Keith L. Seitter  is wrong.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

Danbo

January 22, 2007 - 18:20 ET by Shadesofgray

Danbo, what you meant to say was that the American Meteorological Society is wrong.  Seitter is just the Executive Director.  The AMS board selected the wording of the policy statement I linked.  Just for the record, let it be known that Newsbusters.org opposes the stance of the American Meteorological Society.  All in favor say "Aye!"

I can not and do not speak fo

January 22, 2007 - 18:41 ET by danbo

I can not and do not speak for Newsbuster. Only myself.

Yes. He's wrong.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

danbo

January 22, 2007 - 19:01 ET by Shadesofgray

Danbo is one Newsbuster vote that the American Meteorological Society is wrong on their climate change policy stance.  Duly noted.  Thank you, Danbo. 

There are also a lot of good

January 22, 2007 - 19:16 ET by danbo

There are also a lot of good scientist and meterologist who agree.

People who know AGW theory is a house of cards.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

Rhetoric

January 22, 2007 - 19:32 ET by Shadesofgray

Danbo said "a lot of good scientist and meteorologist who agree." 

Rhetoric, Danbo. There are some.  SOME.  "A lot" is a relative term.  When the American Meteorological Society says something in regards to this topic, I believe them more than random bloggers on a political website.  Please clikc the link.  They say "An overwhelming majority of scientists agree on the following facts relating to the global warming issue.

  • The theory of how greenhouse gases directly interact with atmospheric radiation is not controversial. If no other factors counter their influence, increases in their concentration will lead to global warming.
  • A steady rise in the concentration of greenhouse gases began over 200 years ago and is continuing. Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, has increased from pre-industrial concentrations of 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) to over 367 ppmv in 2000, an increase of more than 30%; methane has increased from 0.7 to about 1.8 ppmv, an increase of more than 150%; nitrous oxide has increased from 0.27 to over 0.31 ppmv, an increase of 16%. Tropospheric ozone is estimated to have increased by 35% since the industrial revolution.
  • At current rates and modes of energy use, doubling of carbon dioxide relative to preindustrial levels is likely to occur by the mid- or late twenty-first century.
  • If we were to proceed on our present course until the current global inventory of known oil and coal deposits are exhausted, carbon dioxide concentrations could reach 4-6 times those of preindustrial levels.
  • Because carbon dioxide is not destroyed chemically in the atmosphere, centuries and longer will be required before the added carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere to the deep ocean and geologic reservoirs.

The accusation of retoric goe

January 22, 2007 - 20:13 ET by danbo

The accusation of retoric goes your way. There have been studies to refute the majority. Oreskes research was poorly done.

In addition to your friend there is. http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/canadianPMletter06.html

A number of highly qualified individual. OISM http://www.energyadvocate.com/petiproj.htm and http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Yes it has been warming for the last 200 years. That was about when we started coming out of the little ice age. In case he missed it. One would assume it would get warmer as we come out of a cool period. If you really want to be honest. We've been warming since the end of the plistocene. Sometimes warming sometimes cooling. Sometimes fast some times cool.

If the CO2 to warming connection is so strong. It would seem that after WWII when we fell in love with the auto we would have warming. We went into a cooling. And were warned about a coming Ice Age. Even though CO2 levels were rising. The overall trend since about1998 has been trending down. Sometimes markedly so as in some of the antarctic stations. (Since 1990 there.) Was this caused by a decrease in CO2?

 As your case for warming and CO2 are spurrious at best I will not go into the other 2.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

Danbo

January 23, 2007 - 09:05 ET by Shadesofgray

Danbo,  your second study is from an energy advocate website.  Maybe you can link a study by Exxon too? 

Also, your third link is a letter, with zero data, written in 1997, by Frederick Seitz, who was born in 1911, making him currently 95 or 96 years old.  Seitz was repudiated by his National Academy of Sciences for this letter, and their stance is the opposite of his.  Seitz was literally one of those RJ Reynolds tobacco "scientists" paid by the firm to "prove" that cigarettes did not cause lung cancer.  This is the guy you want to hitch your beliefs to?  Um, alrighty then.  He is still alive, surprisingly.  He is surely resting comfortably in hospice care somewhere, soiling his Depends undergarments.  Maybe you should email him to see what studies he has written since the turn of the century when he was "only" 89 years old. 

Everyone please read shades o

January 23, 2007 - 10:09 ET by danbo

Everyone please read shades of gray's links. This is educational. Quote: "Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon are the next generation in mass murder deceivers." And you have the gonads to talk about us as conspiracy theorist.

If you would bother to read Dr Seltz on the so called tobacco. R J Renold offered the money with no strings. So he took it. Gave it to others for basic research. No strings. He still sounds sharp to me. But you have your agenda.

If you don't want to accept anything from Exxon. Fine. I suggest then we also in all fairness not accept anything from anyone involved in an environmental group or recieving grant money.

Please everyone. Look at his links.

A waste of time. But educational.

Oh. On the record. You're a paranoid nut case. And that's on the record.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

Danbo

January 23, 2007 - 10:26 ET by Shadesofgray

Danbo

January 23, 2007 - 10:26 ET by Shadesofgray

I give you credit for the quick responses.

 I do not claim that Gore has climate credentials.  I am hitching myself to the American Meteorological Society, not Gore.  Gore just happens to say some of the same things AMS says.  Your list of people from Willie Soon to Sallie Baliunas to McKittrick to especially Tim Ball, are all very well known global warmth skeptics.  Their names are always thrown out into these debates.  I have read much of their stuff.  They write tons of letters to the government of Canada about not joining Kyoto.  They do not have peer reviewed studies out there, though.  They are talkers.  Excellent.  They have every right to do so, and they are entitled to their views, if based on sound science. 

Again, I agree with the AMS, because I do not believe they have an ax to grind except for their own research. If agreeing with them makes me a paranoid nut case, well, I'm okay with that.  Besides, I'm pretty sure that I specifically said  I am somewhat in the middle of the road in all this.  I don't deny that the earth is warming, but I don't think the world willl end because of it. 

Lastly, if you have such great research from Ball and McKittrick, then why did you choose instead to use a three paragraph letter written in 1997 by a man who is probably going to die any day now?  That was what I was questioning.  You can toss out my link about him that you reference if you want.  I didn't explore the whole site.  It is probably not appropriate.  But the news article that said that the Natl Academy of Science disassociated themselves from Seitz's letter is more important.  Tell the Newsbusters to investigate that. 

Sorry

January 23, 2007 - 10:30 ET by Shadesofgray

My laptop froze up, so I hit "post comment" 3 times thinking it wasn't going.  Sorry about that.

I can give your tons of recen

January 23, 2007 - 10:59 ET by danbo

I can give your tons of recent data. Including from the deniers of mass murder. (Coming from the people who killed DDT then ignore the people who die from malaria.)

You can jump on an old man if you wish to get your jollies. I read recent interviews with him. And still seems real sharp to me. Even at what 98.

I think it's creepy. The man gave a lot to science and the nation. Including basic medical research, not to prove tobacco was ok. (He points out that his father knew tobacco caused cancer.) But let's trash him because he disagreed with the warmers. Let's trash him. Real creepy.

The age of the piece does not detract from the names on the list. That's a smoke screen. The review was just an old discussion of the list. Nothing more 17,000 is a lot of people disagreeing with you. Even if we take half the people off the list because warmers don't like them still leaves a lot of scientist. And they give you the names.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=041406F

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

Conspiracy theorist?

January 23, 2007 - 10:44 ET by Shadesofgray

"And you have the gonads to talk about us as conspiracy theorist."

Danbo, I don't recall talking about anybody here being a conspiracy theorist on this topic. 

Also, I agree that I will not send you any studies from groups like Greenpeace or Sierra Club.  That would be the equivalent of an Exxon or Energyadvocate.com study.  Or an RJ Reynolds "scientist."  Groups like AMS are different from enviro groups, I think you would agree.

I stand corrected on the cons

January 23, 2007 - 11:08 ET by danbo

I stand corrected on the conspiracy theory.

You take whe words of a few people in the society but wish to avoid everyone else.

There's lots of money here. More money than is realized from research grants, carbon trading, carbon taxes.

You want to listen to the director of AMS but ignore it's members. And scilence them.

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

I don't care who pays the res

January 23, 2007 - 11:30 ET by danbo

I don't care who pays the researcher. It's the quality of the research.

BTW AMS was opinion. Not research.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

Research

January 23, 2007 - 13:57 ET by Shadesofgray

Danbo said "I don't care who pays the researcher.  It's the quality of the research."

How does Danbo judge the quality of the research?  That is my first question. 

Also, if you don't care who pays the researcher, then you believe that bias does not exist.  Bias is influenced by who pays you, because if you are paid by someone who has a stake in the outcome of the research, then your research is flawed from the beginning.  You say that it is the quality of the research.  But, I would assume that if I sent you a beautifully laid out 100 page report with very convincing charts, data, and analysis that said that global warming exists, the first thing you would do is question who wrote it.  If that is not the case, and you don't care who writes a report, then I have some Greenpeace stuff I can send you.  If you do doubt the outcome strictly because Greenpeace wrote it, then your statement is disproved.  

Well. In graduate school I ha

January 23, 2007 - 14:23 ET by danbo

Well. In graduate school I had a very good research instructor.   Taught me a lot about good research. I've also done some research. It's not how pretty it is. Or how many charts. There is some impressive garbage out there.

Is there bias? Yes. A good researcher attempts to minimize the effect his bias has on his research.

The reason for debate in science is to avoid the problems of bias. Which you and some of your friends which to silence. We want to minimize the chances of accepting a false hypothesis.

I hate to say this. But there were a lot of lousy researchers in grad school.

Talk later throat.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

Would your Mr Seitter be will

January 22, 2007 - 19:26 ET by danbo

Would your Mr Seitter be willing to debate it? Like NERC is doing? I think I know some people who would be willing to debate it.

Though I can't speak for Newsbusters. But, they may be willing and able to host it.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

Danbo

January 22, 2007 - 19:38 ET by Shadesofgray

Danbo, I have exchanged exactly one email with Seitter.  It is not like I am friends with him or could speak on his behalf.  However, if you send him a respectful and polite email with a specific question, he will answer it.  I asked him to comment on the naysayer weatherman in Alabama, James Spann.   The exact response Seitter sent to me on this topic at 2:40 eastern time was: 

While there are some naysayers in the community, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is in agreement with the results coming from a huge body of research. This is presented in the IPCC reports and the AMS statement you refer to is consistent with this. A new statement is being prepared that will state the issue even more clearly.

Keith Seitter

I never realized science was

January 22, 2007 - 23:37 ET by Unsane

I never realized science was so democratic!  How quaint!  When will they vote on the validity of Principia Mathematica?

(Science cannot have a consensus.  You do not need consensus to determine 2+2=4.  Nor is it a dogmatic religion as you wish it to be.)

Besides, if global warming is in fact man made and an immutable fact requiring the dismantling of our economy:

1) If the Kyoto Protocol addresses a GLOBAL problem called GLOBAL warming, why are China, Mexico, and India, among other countries, exempt from it?

2) Why does the Kyoto Protocol not address, at all the issue of tropical deforestation, which is the cause of 20% of global greenhouse emissions?

3) Why no major Atlantic hurricanes this year?

4) How come the world's highest recorded temperature was recorded in 1922?

5) Why did it snow south and east of San Antonio for Christmas 2004? San Antonio RARELY if EVER gets snow.

6) Why did it snow in Lisbon and New Delhi in the winter of 2005-2006? Why did it snow in Johannesburg in July 2006 during the austral winter?

7) Exit Glacier has been melting since at least 1780. What human activity back then was causing the glacier to melt?

8) Explain the appearance of icebergs in the Chukchi Sea and the Beaufort Sea in the Barrow area at the end of July 2004.

9) Finally, last week's ice storm in south Texas (you would think they would become rarer with global warming) leaves much to be explained.

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???."  - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

The seminal question they NEV

January 22, 2007 - 18:44 ET by Warner Todd Huston

The seminal question they NEVER address is HOW!?

We are all in agreement that global warming happened before several times in Earth's past. But there was NEVER man around to "cause" it before.

Why are we so sure we are "causing" it now!?

We AREN'T causing it, THAT'S how!

If it is happening it is a natural occurrence.

Here is a helpful hint. If you live where global warming is raising the water levels to encroach on your land.... MOVE somewhere ELSE!

Problem solved.

HOW

January 22, 2007 - 19:23 ET by Shadesofgray

Warner said "The question they NEVER address is HOW"

Actually, my link does address HOW.  I just didn't want to paste the whole paper in because it takes up a lot of space, but here it is since you asked.  If you read # 2)  Background, it gives the Meteorological Society's position on HOW.  Again, this is not Shadesofgray or Al Gore saying this.  These are the people who accredit meteorologists or else they cannot do their jobs.  This is just a small part of HOW, Warner.  Please read the entire linked page, because I am sure you don't want me to paste the whole thing on your string.  Also, if you want to debate with the AMS, go for it.  I'd love to see that.  Again, the executive director's email address is Keith L. Seitter [kseitter@ametsoc.org].  He returned my email within 30 minutes.  Or you could be like Al Gore and duck the debate!  : )  Oh, the irony!!  Quote from their policy page (linked above):

"2. Background. Prior to the industrial age, natural processes such as solar variability and volcanic outgassing were the dominant forcing factors producing long-term climate changes over periods of decades, centuries, and millennia. However, there is convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents in the atmosphere, have become a major agent of climate change.

During the industrial period, the atmospheric abundance of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, halocarbons (e.g., chlorofluorocarbons), and tropospheric ozone have increased as a direct result of human activity. The increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has come largely from fossil fuel combustion and land clearing. Methane is produced in anoxic environments in wetlands, agriculture, and landfills, and is also inadvertently released to the atmosphere during energy exploration and delivery. Nitrous oxide is formed by microbial reactions in soils and waters, including those acting on the increasing amounts of nitrogen contained in fertilizers. The major sources of chlorofluorocarbons are refrigerants, industrial uses, and aerosol propellants. Tropospheric ozone is formed by photochemical reactions involving emissions of methane and pollutants and is the third most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide and methane. However, the relative effect of carbon dioxide dominates all other anthropogenic increases of greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution. An overwhelming majority of scientists agree on the following facts relating to the global warming issue."

Solar Warming

January 23, 2007 - 04:00 ET by TheTruth

Keith L. Seitter:  “. . .The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. . ." 

Seitter’s response sounds like he is unsure of his position and he is attempting to sit on both sides of the issue. . .   

If you look at the past 650,000 years in the graphs pictured in Al Gores ‘Incontinent Truth’ one thing becomes very apparent and that is what is occurring today has occurred many times over past history and we are long overdue for some climatic changes (cooling).   It is also apparent that these extreme cyclic climate changes have occurred many times over past history and long before evil Americans were running around in SUVs wanting to destroy the planet.  

How has the Earth managed to cycle from a tropical paradise, to ice glaciers, and back again many times over the past history?    These extreme climatic changes have occurred over millions of years and long before evil Americans running around in SUV’s wanting to destroy the planet.   So just exactly how have all these extreme climatic changes occurred?   Could it be that the Earths furnace, the sun is not a constant? 

Why is Mars simultaneously experiencing ‘global warming’?   There are no evil Americans running around in SUV’s wanting to destroy Mars, so just exactly how is Mars simultaneously warming?    Could it be the sun, the furnace that provides heat to both Earth and Mars is NOT a constant?

Exactly how is it that a super volcano can erupt and belch out many times the C02 and particulate matter of all mankind and over all of history without destroying the planet but somehow evil Americans and their SUVs will destroy the planet if Kyoto is not signed?

If it is truly believed that mankind and green house gases are the cause of climate change and the potential catastrophic destruction of life on Earth, then exactly why are the ‘Communists’ soon to be the world’s biggest polluters completely and totally exempt from all aspects of the Kyoto protocol?

Exactly why is it that liberals like Dr. Heidi Cullen from the weather channel, Al Gore, champions of man made global warming, and liberal members of Congress so desperate to silence all Science research and opposing views into why climatic changes have been occurring for millions of years?

you guys

January 23, 2007 - 08:33 ET by Shadesofgray

You folks need to bombard the American Meteorological Society with these questions, since you obviously know more than they do.  I am not a climate expert.  All I have done to this point is shown that the AMS believes what Al Gore believes.  I am not saying they are right or wrong...but to say that Gore and Cullen are akin to flat earth members or are loony conspiracy theorists, you must also add the "loony" Council of Meteorologists that wrote the AMS policy statement.  Then maybe you can start telling medical doctors that you know more about the human body than they do.  I believe meteorologists more than bloggers without expertise in the area and with a pointed agenda. 

Also, for the record, I don't think the Kyoto Protocol will fix anything.  So your questions to me about that are meaningless. 

Shadesof gray: Have you bothe

January 23, 2007 - 09:41 ET by danbo

Shadesof gray: Have you bothered to read the writings of or asked Dr Tim Ball, professor of climatology? How about Dr. Fred Singer who wrote "What to Do about Greenhouse: Look Before You Leap" with Dr Revelle. Al Gore's mentor. How about Dr Vinvent Grey. Or Drs Steve McIntyre and Ross Mckitrick? Dr Willie Soon? Dr William Gray? How about Dr  Richard Lindzen? Dr Sallie Baliunas? How about Drs John Christy and Roy Spencer? And the list can go on for a very long way.

You mention Al Gore's expertise. May I ask his credentials? Other than for the roll of his office in pressuring Dr Singer to remove Dr Revelles name from the work they wrote together.

Science when it works well is open. Scientiest have access to each others data and research. It is open to debate. This is important because only through repeated testing and retesting can we feel very confident in the correctness of our science.

However many as Dr Cullen feel debate is over. Those who challenge or question should have have their credentials stripped. If you can't see the danger of this you are fostering the death of the scientific method.

Granted, Dr Cullen has more impressive scientific credentials than I. However, I am not without scientific credentials or experience myself. I would like to see the data and the debate that Dr Cullen wants to deprive me of.

Are you suggesting I should buy a Ford (or any other make). Because the makers of Ford tell me their car is better? I for one would like to get more information and test drive.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

I have simply asked question

January 23, 2007 - 11:37 ET by TheTruth

I have simply asked questions that should be asked by anyone seeking the truth on what is causing climate change.   By the way I have asked these questions to the people that claim climate change is man made and the debate is over, and I asked the questions without the ‘evil American and SUV’ antics and I never received an answer back!

When you have people trying to silence opposing points of view, Science research, and saying the debate is over when many Scientists are saying the debate is not over that should throw up a big red flag to anyone seeking the truth!  It seems to be the same people that want to silence opposing points of view and Science research concerning man made global warming that want America to sign an agreement that allows the Communists soon to be the worlds biggest polluters a complete free pass from polluting while they essentially shut American industry down.     You don’t see a problem with any of that?       

To TheTruth

January 23, 2007 - 13:47 ET by Shadesofgray

Truth,

I agree with much of what you say, you will be surprised to know.  If you read back what I have said on this string, nowhere have I said that anyone should be silenced.  I know that the Weather Channel girl did, and Al Gore probably does.  But I don't.  I question reports that come from the oil industry, just as I also question reports that come from Greenpeace.  I think you would agree that that is reasonable.  You and Danbo and I do have some common ground on this.  I agree that both sides have the right to state their case: Al Gore and Global Warming folks should tackle the questions of Willie Moon, Tim Bell, etc. head on.  Al Gore is treated as if he is a crazy person on this topic, even though he sides with thousands of scientists.  That is what I don't get.  Whether it is 70% of the scientists is debatable, but if you guys all think Gore is alone in his thinking, you are WAY off. 

I think somebody out there in media land needs to have a television show that lets the two sides debate it out.  Present their studies, charts, rhetoric, projections, etc.  It seems to me that the Tim Bells and McKittricks only give speeches to their naysaying believers, and the warming side only preaches to their choir as well.  You never see them in the same room together (which I realize Gore ducked Lomborg)...I would love for the leaders of these groups to challenge each other to a truly scientific televised debate on the topic.  Judging from the emotion it brings out, I think it would get great ratings. 

Again, the Kyoto Protocol is not something I believe will make a difference.  So I am an example of a global warming believer, but Kyoto Protocol opponent.  I think those two beliefs are not mutually exclusive, and it clouds the issue when they are lumped together as if they are the same thing. 

shades of the truth?

January 23, 2007 - 14:05 ET by tumbler_2007

It's not reassuring to see how you are justified in "questioning" reports from Big Oil, and "questioning" reports from Greenpeace as well. But-- questioning the reports of --get ready:

    THOUSANDS OF SCIENTISTS

Hahaha! Scientists by definition treat you as a gullible idiot! As many as 75% of "studies" published by scientists are false information to the gullible who lap it up.

That's been borne out over tha last couple of centuries. Nobody makes more mistakes than the everyday "scientist". Here are three modern types on which one can always use a grain of salt: Economists, astrologers and scientists.

Truth,

January 23, 2007 - 09:31 ET by Shadesofgray

Truth,  nobody disputes that nature impacts climate change, not even the evil Al Gore.  Humans influence it also, though.  My personal stance is that the Earth is warming up and that humans have impacted it, but there is not enough that we can do to stop it.  Denying it is happening does not help anything.  I have accepted the fact that the floating ice caps will be gone or mostly gone in 40 years.  The land based ice will diminish, but not as much as the floating ice.  The Earth will survive and I'm guessing and hoping that the flooding models shown by the alarmists are way off, and that coastal lands will only be slightly impacted by the rise in waters caused by the polar melting.  I suspect that it won't be as bad as the alarmists say.  Unless you are a polar bear.  They are in real trouble.

Shadesofgray, no where have I

January 23, 2007 - 11:07 ET by TheTruth

Shadesofgray, no where have I 'denied' that climate change is occurring.  

 

"No matter if the scienc

January 21, 2007 - 12:27 ET by danbo

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

Inconvenient Truth for room temp IQs

January 21, 2007 - 12:30 ET by TheTruth

“. . .Al Gore is traveling around the world telling us how we must fundamentally change our civilization due to the threat of global warming. . .”

Everybody but the biggest polluter of all the Communists.   Anybody find it strange that the liberals want everybody to sign Kyoto except for the biggest polluter Communist China.   Imagine the transfer of power and wealth to the Communists if United States did what these Clinton and Gore type liberals are advocating in signing Kyoto.  The Communists would be free to continue its massive expansion and industrialization while the United States would be effectively shut down.  What is it about liberals that makes them feel all warm and fuzzy about Communism and brutal dictatorships?

Anybody watch Al Gores ‘Inconvenient Truth’?    I have, and if I was involved in crafting that BS I sure wouldn’t want to debate anybody with an IQ above room temperature.    The movie starts out with Al Gore sounding like he is telling bedtime story to a five year old with Al Gore going on about how delicate the Earths super thin little atmosphere is.   Hey Al, that delicate little atmosphere has many times cleaned up the mess from super volcanoes that in one single event can belch more C02 and particulate matter then all of man kind has over all of history; there is nothing delicate about it!

Then the movie goes to a cartoon that makes Sponge Bob look sophisticated.  From there it goes to a graph of 650,000 years of the C02 and temperatures.   The graph is out of scale for starters especially the C02 spikes in recent history.   As Gore goes on about the relationship of C02 and temperatures one thing becomes very apparent that what is occurring in modern history is a cyclic event and we are overdue for some major climate changes.   Then Gore stands on platform raising himself to the ceiling to show where C02 and temperatures are headed if the current trends continues.   As you watch the whole thing it is truly laughable. . .  Al could have positioned himself at any of the previous sharp rises over the last 650,000 years and said the exact same thing!  The so called documentary only goes down hill from there.   Yes if I were in Gores position I sure wouldn’t want to debate anybody except another liberal global warming worshipper.

On China and Kyoto

January 21, 2007 - 14:34 ET by Unsane

China did sign on to it; that is, if you believe CNN International.  But no matter; for if they signed up to it or not, China is 100% exempt from it. 

In 2015 the Chinese become the #1 emitter of greenhouse gases of any industrial power.  As you say, however, the silence from the Left on how this impacts a global problem is deafening.  Unless, of course, all of their CO2 is being transferred via a wormhole to Venus...

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???."  - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

Yes the Communists did sign K

January 21, 2007 - 14:57 ET by TheTruth

Yes the Communists did sign Kyoto but as you stated they are completely exempt so they might as well have not signed it.    “2015 the Chinese become the #1 emitter of greenhouse gases”, I had heard the date was 2008.   Regardless the end result of Kyoto that the liberals are clamoring for would be a massive transfer of wealth and power from the United States to Communist China.

My source for the 2015 date w

January 21, 2007 - 15:06 ET by Unsane

My source for the 2015 date was a September 2006 edition of The Economist where they whine in the editorial for the United States to "take the lead" in global warming...oh, I'm sorry..."climate change".  Indeed, I once bought into the notion of man-made global warming...then I read up on Kyoto and saw it for what it is: macrosocialism, the punishing and stealing from the First World nations in order to fund/coddle/give the store to Third World nations, many of whom are Third World due to failed socialist policies.

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???."  - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

I live in NYC. I'm surrounde

January 21, 2007 - 12:58 ET by rimsky

I live in NYC. I'm surrounded by elitist lefties(EL). These EL's give credence to this tripe, and they can't even see that it actually makes them look stupid. Serious reference is given to Algore's documentary as if it was a groundbreaking new study or scientific discovery. You are considered rudely ignorant if you don't fall in line with that attitude. As if you had just committed the worst kind of social gaff.

The local news here in the Wa

January 21, 2007 - 13:35 ET by Galvanic

The local news here in the Washington DC-area has reported cases of school districts which have declined offers to accept and present hundreds of free  Inconvenient Truth DVDs.  While most of the school administrators and faculty are likely sympathetic to Gore's views, they probably don't want to face the backlash of parents.  More importantly, I think they really want to protect the film from undergoing a thorough scrutiny of parents supported by "the other side" that it could get subjected to prior to entrance into the curricula.

Big Al has joined the lightwe

January 21, 2007 - 13:51 ET by donsales

Big Al has joined the lightweight at the Weather Channel in calling for the resignation and/or decertification of ANYBODY who disagrees with him on global warming....... This devil's advocate for another POV on global warming would have had Al for breakfast had he showed up..... Once again, Al is not an Alpha male....Al is a pussy.... Nowhere to Run....Nowhere To Hide.....

'lightweight at the Weather C

January 21, 2007 - 14:43 ET by rimsky

'lightweight at the Weather Channel' being the key point here.. Algore and any GW groupies that he might be able to snag are secondary. The real threats in this issue are the big players like the UN and the EU, both who have the resources to lie in a big way about anything so as to have a huge influence, in this case to influence opinion about how bad the US is in that we haven't signed onto this Kyoto BS.

Gore says that Antarctica is

January 21, 2007 - 17:01 ET by Conservative in the Arts

Gore says that Antarctica is melting and presents picture to "prove" it,

you mean like NBC sending a reporter to Antartica in SUMMER to show melting ice burgs to a US that's in the middle of winter?

NAAA.......there couldn't be a connection.....

.

January 21, 2007 - 17:21 ET by directorblue

It's certainly admirable to advocate for the reduction of pollution. But when Gore and friends studiously ignore the world's biggest polluters and instead target the American economy, he loses all credibility.

Al Gore Skips Interview

January 21, 2007 - 19:33 ET by misterbee241

Today in our local paper, The Free Lance Star, our local screaming liberal Richard Amrhine has this to say about Al Gore's Inconvenient Baloney:

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/012007/01212007/251899

The FLS is sort of a middle of the road paper. When it went "mor" it dumped several of its liberal columnists, but kept Amrhine around.  He only appears about once a month to grace us with his intellect.

misterbee

January 21, 2007 - 19:44 ET by misterbill

I am probably on messr amhrines short list of unfriendly natives. I just suggested in an email to him that I could sell him a bridge in New York if he believes al gore.

Yesterday's Oregonion newsp

January 21, 2007 - 22:41 ET by lnthomp

Yesterday's Oregonion newspaper had an article about how Portland wasn't prepared for the few inches of snow we got Tuesday because snowfall has decreased for the last 25 years. In the midst of about 15 column-inches of writing about how Global Warming is to blame for the reduction in snow, they allowed in this: "Oregon state climatologist George Taylor, a skeptic when it
comes to global warming, notes that the concrete and
buildings of urban areas can soak up more heat and keep
temperatures higher. Corvallis, less influenced by such urban heat, does not show the same falloff in snow, he says." and then proceed to dismiss that as inconsequential as they go on with the GW mantra.

Lee T.

U.S. Navy (ret.) / Hillsboro, Oregon

I have enough money to last me the rest of my life. Unless I buy something.