Question: When you’re a liberal, how do you know if you’re on thin ice, especially the kind that you’re claiming is melting all over the planet due to global warming?
Answer: When even papers like the New York Times are publishing articles skeptical of the junk science you’ve been peddling across the questionably warming globe.
Sure, soon-to-be-Dr. Gore has kind of won an Oscar for his schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” even though all he got to take home that evening was Tipper and all the food she was able to stuff into her pocketbook at the buffets thrown in his honor.
However, it must have been a quite shock to find out that the leftists working for Punch Sulzberger were going to publish a not so adoring article after all that oohing and aahing Gore received from the Hollywood elites just days prior (h/t Drudge, emphasis mine throughout):
But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”
Real data? We don’t need no stinkin’ real data. We don’t need to show you our data. The article deliciously continued:
Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.
Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”
Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe’s recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence.
Amazing. The New York Times is suggesting that Dr. Gore might have exaggerated his claims and gone beyond scientific evidence? Somebody other than Punch should pinch me.
Yet, maybe even better were Gore’s absurd explanations for the disparities between his slide presentation and actual science:
In his e-mail message, Mr. Gore defended his work as fundamentally accurate. “Of course,” he said, “there will always be questions around the edges of the science, and we have to rely upon the scientific community to continue to ask and to challenge and to answer those questions.”
We have to rely upon the scientific community to continue to ask and to challenge and to answer those questions? Excuse me, doctor, but didn’t you claim that the questions are over, and that a consensus now agrees with your views? Furthermore, isn’t anyone that questions man’s role in this akin to a Holocaust denier much as your friend Ellen Goodman stated? As such, who do you suggest should be asking these questions given answers you've already presented as being unassailable?
Regardless of the answers, conceivably the most shocking element concerning this article was not only how many skeptics were quoted, but also how much space was given to their views. Here is a sampling of the fifteen consecutive paragraphs of uninterrupted contrary opinions presented by the Times:
While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of “shrill alarmism.”
[...]
Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”
So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.
[...]
Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.
“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.
Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.
“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”
In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”
Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”
Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.
“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”
Wow. That’s a lot of skeptics quoted by one of the most liberal newspapers in America, wouldn’t you agree?
I wonder what this means for the so-called consensus. Regardless, Dr. Gore must be wondering if he's back in Florida counting chads.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
THINGS WE SEND IN SPACE
March 12, 2007 - 23:09 ET by PawpawNI was always told all the change in weather, all the storms, everything was caused by all the things we send into the sky! Then it's nuclear fallout. Now I'm told it's because of the emissions from livestock. What's a person to believe? Oh, I forgot, it's the KARL ROVE Weather Machine!
Al Gore:- "There will a
March 12, 2007 - 23:09 ET by BlazerAl Gore:- "There will always be questions around the edges of science"
WTF?
Translation:- "We will always use an edge to get around the scientific questions"
Not good when the NYT thinks a fellow lib is FOS.
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
Be still, my heart. Good jo
March 12, 2007 - 23:12 ET by dahliatraversBe still, my heart. Good job, NYTimes.
Wait for the other shoe to dr
March 13, 2007 - 08:48 ET by dscottWait for the other shoe to drop, wait for it..., wait for it...
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Yeah, sure the NYT did a good job...not ...
March 13, 2007 - 09:13 ET by SportPoliticsLook,I understand it's shocking, but after 1000 hit pieces lauding the democrats wild assertations of imminent destruction of the earth, I don't give them one single bit of credit for "having scientists that believe it is man's fault but won't be as bad as alarmists say it will " quoted a few times while they pretend that for a year they hadn't worshipped at Al Gore's inconvenient feet.
Perhaps they are jealous of his award. That's about it.
Read the quotes, they even included that man did the warming - the big consensus, but that it won'tbe so bad, because the UN panel reduced it's predictions....( they didn't even say what the former cleotic lies were before they were reduced.)
Look, they're playing the reverse engineer opinion game. If they admit that Al Gore's dire scenarios are unlikely a year after his babbling propaganda was supported by one and the same - they can pretend to have been fair,or at least to have "an objectiveview" - because they got it from their own team...
As soon as I see a FULL YEAR of raging anti-man-made global warming articles - I'll give them the credit for having done a good job and having been fair. Until then, this is a weak, YEAR LATE , not satisfying " man did it " piece.
It'spathetic that they are so far left we have to cheer their left wing globalwarming is real and man did it " revelations of dissent".
Really,we conservatives better watch it, or we'll be praising them for admitting GWB didn't have the Iraq invasion planned for his oil buddies when he was governor of Texas.
Noel...Shocklumentary!Good on
March 12, 2007 - 23:17 ET by bigtimerNoel...
Shocklumentary!
Good one!
LOL funny! Original!
As far as the NYT's and this article....beats me!
Maybe they have heard from a little fly on the wall Gore is thinking about entering the ring seriously when he is seeing what is happening to Hillary and her numbers, after-all they are supporting her from what I have seen, so now it is time to jump on the band-wagon to beat him down...can't think of any sane reason why the NYTimes would do this...after-all everything is political with the leftist NYT's, they do not print news fit to print unless they have an agenda as they see it.
Aaaaaa....hold on...I'm sti
March 12, 2007 - 23:17 ET by radiofitz34Aaaaaa....hold on...I'm still picking my jaw up from the floor! You mean The New York Times published this article? Come on Noel, I know after a few beers...your serious!
Well you know, I think it possible that this documentary shown in Britain may have had some effect here in the USA.
RF
March 12, 2007 - 23:23 ET by Noel SheppardRF,
No beers today, bud. As part of my new fitness program, I only have beer on Tuesdays and Fridays. As such, this one is completely serious.
However, I wouldn't believe ANYTHING I write tomorrow after 6PM PDT! :-) ns
P.S. Liberal trolls should now feel free to respond, "That's okay, Noel. We don't believe anything you write regardless of the day or time!" Beatcha! :-) ns
Please Please - No more Lock Boxes. I beg you Al. No more.
March 13, 2007 - 08:31 ET by acaiguanaPlease Please - No more Lock Boxes. I beg you Al. No more.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
I truly hope that the only
March 14, 2007 - 00:38 ET by DirkCSI truly hope that the only "effect this documentary shown in Britian" had in the USA was to show that both sides can be guilty of going off the deep end.
I agree that Gore is just as big of a blowhard as Moore (ok maybe not quite as "big"), but Martin Durkin is hardly any better.
An absurd comparison. Gore,
March 14, 2007 - 00:53 ET by NL207An absurd comparison. Gore, on the one hand, continues to present potential effects of global warming in the most extreme and catastrophic scenarios. He makes predictions that are far outside the maximums that any scientific body endorses and when he does quote science, he uses the most extreme scenarios they identify.
Martin Durkin, on the other hand, did little more than parade an assortment of the scientific opponents of AGW before the camera. These are representatives of the scientists that Al Gore claims do not exist or dismisses as "deniers" like this is some kind of sin.
That you are unable to distiguish these two approaches is a personal tragedy.
That you are unable to distig
March 14, 2007 - 15:36 ET by DirkCSThat you are unable to distiguish between these two approaces is a personal tragedy.
You open your mouth (so to speak) and remove all doubt...
I really shouldn't even address it because it is painfully obvious that you are either: (a) an unaplogetic hypocrite or (b) plain stupid. Durkin's show is no less outrageous and certainly no more objective than is Al Gore's. While I agree wholeheartedly with Durkin's presentation of the facts regarding the fact that the pro-AGW side is 95% politically motivated, he makes himself a large part of the joke by using questionable sources and unproven science.
The real tragedy is that you disparage me without doing YOUR homework first.
Here's to help you get started: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html"
Durkin does his own misrepresentation of facts in his video and has a nifty track record of Michael Moore (read outrageous) type shows.
I find Al Gore and his video just as distasteful as most of the people on this site, but Durkin's is hardly any better, especially if you actually take the time to investigate the science on your own. Something that you apparently have not.
I'll give you another hint to get you started:
The main theory of the Durkin's show (cosmic rays + water molecules = clouds large enough to effect global temps) is, as yet, unproven scientifically. In fact the cold, hard science is leaning towards disproving this theory for now.
I am not, in any shape or form, advocating AGW (I'm waiting for the science to prove/disprove this). I'm simply hoping that this site isn't full of hypocrites that are willing to believe everything Durkin says simply because it fits their "agenda".
Dirk
EDIT: For clarification.
The main theory of Durkin's s
March 14, 2007 - 23:27 ET by NL207The main theory of Durkin's show is quite promising theoretically. The only real question in my mind is if the effect is sizeable enough to actually be relevant? Can cosmic radiation be a significant climate term as solar radiation is. Or is it just noise?
This is also the point of all the criticisms leveled against the theory of AGW. It is not at all clear that CO2 in the historical range of concentrations it has appeared in the Earth's atmosphere has sufficient "greenhouse" effect to be a forcing term in the climatic equation. Yet there are a whole range of politicians ready to impose fascist economic controls based on this claim.
The scientists that Durkin used are "controversial" because of the MSM smear war that has been conducted aganst them by the leftists and the Pro AGW crowd. I will show you a case in point. Consider these two men: Dr. James E. Hansen [pro AGW] and Dr. Richard S. Lindzen [AGW skeptic]. I've linked their cv's on Wikipedia. These men actually have very similar credentials, yet look at the vastly different way they are treated there. Notice that Lindzen's cv is even being disputed for 'neutrality' and as 'unencyclopedic' despite being an obvious leftist hatchet job.
I will offer this insight here: Of these two men, I suspect Lindzen is the more capable as an individual. I don't know either of them personally and professionally only peripherally . Were I a betting man, I'd say that Lindzen had a slightly bettter and more rigorous academic background than Hansen over the interval between high school and the attainment of Phd. Otherwise, some might say the difference between them from the perspective of credentials is close to naught, yet look at the disrespect Lindzen receives from Wikipedia. Why is this, do you suppose?
And don't you think YOU should be more careful about who you attempt to assign homework to?
As a meteorologist, I could
March 12, 2007 - 23:23 ET by Jake GonteskyAs a meteorologist, I couldn't help but to comment on the strange nature of this NYT article myself.
My favorite line must be "Although Al Gore is not a scientist..." I nearly expected them to follow up with "...but he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night..."
You can read the rest of my thoughts on this NYT article as well as my other thoughts on the global warming alarmist hype here.
http://www.notesinth...
Mammatus
March 12, 2007 - 23:24 ET by Noel SheppardM,
Couldn't you have PMed or EMed me that Holiday Inn Express line so that I could have added it without anybody knowing who I got it from? Sheesh. How 'bout doing a fellow GW warrior a solid. :-) ns
Noel - You're not going to
March 12, 2007 - 23:37 ET by Jake GonteskyNoel -
You're not going to believe this, but I did try to PM you about this article a couple of hours before you posted (I did get a message through to Matthew) about the post I made about it earlier in the evening on my page and on the forums here, but apparently it must not have gone through to you?!? I thought it did at the time, but now it doesn't show up in my sent items folder.
But as long as the word is getting out on what a scam these alarmist tactics are, I don't care who's doing the talking. Thanks for all you do around here - you do a great service by getting the word out on these issues.
http://www.notesinthemargin.com
Well hit me over the head w
March 12, 2007 - 23:29 ET by radiofitz34Well hit me over the head with a 2x4, I just read the article. It's true. That schocklementary line was funny altough I thought you may have mean't schlockumentary.
I thought the line was &quo
March 13, 2007 - 13:13 ET by Tim the EnchanterI thought the line was "I'm not a scientist, but I play one on TV." Well, playing something something on TV does give you "expert witness" status in front of Congressional Committees, doesn' it?
I'm elated
March 12, 2007 - 23:27 ET by pbthinkerI've been having a duel with the editor of the Editorial Page, of the Palm Beach Post, on this subject, for over a year. In fact, this all started when one of the editorial writers, at the Post, saw Gore's movie and started repeating the fear mongering schlock Gore was putting out.
Since then, there has been no balance to the articles in the Post. All Gloom All The Time, when it comes to global warming. I'm looking forward to seeing what they print with this, from the Times, and the AP Article on the expedition that had to turn back because it was too cold in the Arctic.
I'm sure there will be some of the fruitcakes come to Gore's defense, which will be front page news at the Times.
While you're dueling, be sure
March 13, 2007 - 08:59 ET by dscottWhile you're dueling, be sure to drop this bomb on them: Al Gore and the other 5% of the population (15 million) who own 70% of the personal wealth of the US use at least as much electricity and fuel as the rest of the entire US population combined (285 million) as a conservative estimate. If Al Gore uses 20 times the electricity in just one house, (not counting what he uses in the other two) what do you think all the rest of the wealthy are comsuming? Wrap your mind around that concept!!!! Unimaginable, isn't it? It's so outrageously out there that very few people even consider it, let alone grasp the implications of it. So who should be reducing their energy consumption and who do you think is consuming the planet... Brad Pitt?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
realclimate.org would beg to
March 12, 2007 - 23:31 ET by M J Brealclimate.org would beg to differ.
Sure they do.But then? Realcl
March 13, 2007 - 00:22 ET by danboSure they do.
But then? Realclimate has a vested interest.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Drive-by post....
March 13, 2007 - 00:57 ET by Six String SpiffSo M J B I just gt back from your website, and it seems they already know everything ther is to know about GW... Thats pretty arrogant. DOn't you think? Scientist of all people need an open mind. I though I was visiting the website of one opinion only... don't be a lazy ass either. Put a link on that silly thing so people can laugh at it with more ease. You liberals really need to stop tryig to save us from ourselves. You can't just look at the weather pattern of 100 years and claim to know jack shit. The globe has been around for billions of years, and will continue to be long after we are gone. So take your human loathing keister and play in the AGW kiddy sandbox.
Sure, I watch the MSM... Through a pair of crosshairs.
Spiff. Realclimate is basical
March 13, 2007 - 01:32 ET by danboSpiff. Realclimate is basically Michael Mann's website. He's protecting his reputation as he was the one who came up with the climate chart. Lots of flaws in in.
I always found them preachy. And really don't give you a lot of data.
The site they don't like is climateaudit.org.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
~ realclimate.org would beg
March 13, 2007 - 04:36 ET by liberal_bug_zapper~ realclimate.org would beg to differ. ~
What happened to quality trolling??? I mean come on... is that the best you can do????
____________________________________________________
"These are the times that try men's souls." ~ Thomas Paine
For Sparta and Newsbusters!!
March 13, 2007 - 06:19 ET by Jack BauerLBZ -- dead on buddy.
The standard of trolling trolls and their trolling dimwittery isn't what it used to be. And that's saying something.
I think we are exhausting them by the 300 we deploy on Newsbusters.
We're the Newspartans of the conservative movement!
Newspartans! What is your p
March 13, 2007 - 10:10 ET by fosstenNewspartans! What is your profession?
AAAH-OOO! AAAH-OOO! AAAH-OOO!
Newspartans! I like that!!!
March 13, 2007 - 10:46 ET by steviep831Newspartans! I like that!!!
My favorite sentence from the article
March 13, 2007 - 00:52 ET by ApacheIPThis sentence jumped out at me.
He said that after 30 years of trying to communicate the dangers of
global warming, “I think that I’m finally getting a little better at
it.”
If we assume, and I readily admit that is not always wise, that the reporter heard Mr. Gore correctly and that this isn't a typo, then Mr. Gore is proving himself someone who can't be trusted to tell the truth. 30 years ago the chicken littles of the world were preaching GLOBAL COOLING.
Why anyone would want to lie about such an unimportant and trivial detail is beyond me. But if I have learned anything during my years it is that if someone will lie about trivial stuff, they will lie about anything and everything.
I am a new member. I am not the user Apache. I would like to apologize in advance for any ensuing confusion caused by the similarity in nicknames.
this whole global warming thi
March 13, 2007 - 01:10 ET by pmohbuckthis whole global warming thing is about to implode ... at least it appears that way
"At some point, the 'public' has to contribute more to society than just exercising its rights" - [PMOH]Buck
hey MJB. There's one thing
March 13, 2007 - 01:28 ET by radiofitz34hey MJB. There's one thing about sucking a sore thumb is that it doesn't make it heal. Think about that one.
Please see and pass the follo
March 13, 2007 - 01:31 ET by jdhawkPlease see and pass the following link to all you know - especially your liberal friends. It is an hour and fifteen minute video called, "The Great Global Warming Swindle." This is the video that should have won the Academy Award!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=en
NYT epiphany...?
March 13, 2007 - 02:30 ET by gayconsvNYT epiphany? I think not. I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees the stong arm of billary in this. I can't imagine the 'grey lady' publishing such an anti-gore piece without a 'great clinton-wing conspiracy's being behind it.
political hype
March 13, 2007 - 08:00 ET by AgnosticWith another Dem out of the potential presidential/political picture, or soon to be, we are now back on track for the "East Coast" Vs. "West Coast" (Hillary vs Obama, if you follow the money) presidential race that the media can really hype.
NYT to Algore: Your end of th
March 13, 2007 - 08:22 ET by muh-oonNYT to Algore: Your end of the world predictions can't get anymore extreme and they have not generated the numbers to get you into the white house, so sit down, and shut up so that you don't ruin it for Hillary.
Noel, Great work as usual. I
March 13, 2007 - 08:41 ET by old croNoel,
Great work as usual. I especially liked your reference to "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Or was it "Blazing Saddles" Or "WKRP". So I researched the quote and much to my chagrin I was not "quoting" the original movie line at all. "Badges, to god-damned hell with badges! We have no badges. In fact, we don't need badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges, you god-damned cabrón and ching' tu madre! Come out from that shit-hole of yours. I have to speak to you."
I like the "We don't need no stinking badges" line and use it often.
I think the tide is turning on the GW crowd. Rational people around the country are popping up like strippers out of cakes. Ahh...maybe I should use another alliteration , but you get what I mean. I doubt we will ever be rid of this alarmist tripe, but at least we can "cut it off at the pass" before they do irrepairable harm to our country and way of life.
"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?"
- Gen. Jack D. Ripper
Every day I wake up proud to
March 13, 2007 - 08:51 ET by daveinbocaEvery day I wake up proud to be in the state that prevented this fraud and imposter from completely effing up the USA. No matter how much the MSM wails about GWB, just think of how much worse it would be if the "inventor of the information superhighway" had bungled his way into the Oval Office!
If even the NYT has begun to penetrate Lyin' Al's smoke and mirrors, can its pilot fish be far behind?
“I’ve never been paid a
March 13, 2007 - 08:58 ET by Dave R“I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”
Ouch! I felt that one all the way over here.
Global Warming?
March 13, 2007 - 09:12 ET by belagThis is my first post on this blog. My apologies for making it such a long one.
I am from what you may call the "other" end of the political spectrum. I read newsbusters for the perspective it gives. I think it's quite proper to treat everything skeptically, exposing any bias.
One of the issues very important to me is climate change. It also seems to be a hot topic here. Here is my take on the subject. Since my views are at odds with many people here, I expect a vigorous and (I hope) healthy debate.
Remember, the way science is, it's always (or should be) skeptical. New theories continue to challenge the old, there's debate on the nuances. After, considering all these theories, is there a scientific consensus?
What is a scientific consensus? It's not unanimity. There will always be dissenters. You look at the balance of evidence in major, peer-reviewed, respectable scientific journals and position statements from major scientific organizations. A few scientists may disagree on this and that, but what's the balance of the evidence?
I am more interested (for now) in whether there is a scientific consensus on the issue, therefore I will put aside, statements by politicians, things you read in newpaper, movies like Al Gore's and so on.
I will try to keep to respectable, verifiable sources. When responding to my post, please keep to this guideline. I will not be using any print / film media for my argument.
Now, the first thing I want to make clear is: the climate is not simple. It's a very complex thing to understand. I am not an expert on the subject. Therefore, what I should do is what reasonable non-experts do on the subject. Read what the experts on the subject have to say about it. I reckon Al Gore doesn't know much about this either. So let's examine the evidence.
Is there global warming caused by humans?
The IPCC has been treated as a pretty shoddy institution in the documentary even though it is the leading organization on this issue. Moreover, it's findings have been supported by almost every other major organization in every country. So let's see what the American Geophysical Union has to say about that.
http://www.agu.org/s...
The first para:
"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century."
Moreover, later in the document:
"The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern."
This statement supports the IPCC position on the issue and is further supported by almost every major scientific organization on Earth. You can check these, very respectable, mainstream scientific organizations.
A few days back, I learnt from this blog about a movie exposing the global warming swindle. I thought it was interesting. Let's deconstruct the movie. It says that greenhouse gases are not the main source of global warming, but the sun is.
Ok, let's look at who they quote, one by one.
Till about 8:00 it's mostly about soundbites from different scientists. The title of the movie is shown at about this time. So I'll start from here.
At this point they talk about Lord Lawson of Blaby. Since (as I write above) I will concentrate on the scientific consensus in the post, not on the politicians, I'll skip this part. I will return to this point in a future post if anybody is interested.
Upto, around 12:00 they say that there has been lots of variation in the Earth's climate in the past. Nobody denies this. The issue is whether the current change is caused by humans or whether it's natural.
The movie next goes on to this very point. It makes the point that CO2 and temperature don't go together. At 15:00 Professor Tim Ball claims that the "facts don't fit the theory". Let's analyze this.
I have already said that it's not a simple matter as the movie (and indeed Al Gore in HIS movie) claims. Since I'm not considering movies/media etc. I will not comment about Al Gore.
Since the movie levels criticism against IPCC, I'll quote the relevant portion of the IPCC's TAR (Third Assessment Report).
http://www.grida.no/...
It says, in the summary of climate of the 20th century:
"Several coupled models are able to reproduce the major trend in 20th century surface air temperature, when driven by historical radiative forcing scenarios corresponding to the 20th century."
In other words, the TAR and Prof. Ball contradict each other. So who do you believe?
Apart from the fact that the reports of almost every other major scientific organizations agree with that, I'll show more evidence in the following.
The movie now continues with the influence of CO2 (around 17:00) on troposphere.
In 2001, John Cristy (who is also majorly quoted in the film) co-authored, with a number of other prominent scientists this report:
http://www.climatesc...
"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced
global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."
Again, I could go on, this conclusion has been reached by nearly every major scientific organization in the world.
In fact, John Cristy as the co-author of the IPCC report, has supported its conclusions. What he DOESN'T support is that it's the catastrophic change the media is making it out to be. Again, he's one scientist who basically agrees with the IPCC report (he also signed the AGU report quoted above) but is skeptical about exactly how serious it is. There are others who believe that the IPCC report is toned down, it's actually much more serious than it's reported to be.
This post is quite long for now. I'll continue the post at a future date after people respond to it. Thanks for your patience if you've made it this far.
I'll take a shot a changing y
March 13, 2007 - 10:00 ET by old croI'll take a shot a changing your outlook.
Remember Global Cooling
Remember Global Warming or Global Cooling
Remember Global Cooling?
When the "Global Cooling" scare was going on in the 70's, wasn't that also consensus? Wasn't that supported by the MSM? What makes you think they are right this time around? Do you honestly believe man can change this world’s climate when the climate has been changing on its own for eons? Give me a break! It's OK to be skeptical, but its downright imbecility to add your eggs to the global warming crowd’s basket of nut jobs. Not that I'm saying you are one, but think man, think!
“The radical right is so homophobic that they're blaming global warming on the AIDS quilt.”
- Dennis Miller
Belag, you have posted a reas
March 13, 2007 - 10:18 ET by MikeBBelag, you have posted a reasonable pro-AGW post, not filled with the usual stupidity of most of the pro-AGW posts we see here. I appreciate that.
Now, for the sake of argument, let us assume that global warming is really happening. Are you aware that there is concurrent global warming on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Titan, Triton, and Pluto? Now, what do all these celestial bodies have in common? Is it angry North American white males maliciously driving SUVs? Have they all undergone Industrial Revolutions in the last 300 years? Or, is the one thing they all have in common is that huge fusion bomb that is only 93 million miles away from us?
Speaking of the Sun, are you aware that solar output has been increasing? So, between an increase in the amount of energy arriving from the sun which could warm things up, the increase in sunspot activity would increase the solar wind, which would tend to deflect cosmic rays away from the earth resulting in fewer clouds, and an increase in temperatures. This idea was presented in the documentary, as well as here, here, and here. The last link is to a somewhat lengthy pdf document that is well worth the read.
For other articles on the planets and moons in the solar system heating up, run a search on "Mars global warming", "Jupiter global warming", etc. I would also recommend you search for articles on Solar output increase and Cosmic rays and climate change. You could also check out articles on global warming at junkscience.com.
For a well researched novel concerning global warming and its doomsaying advocates, I highly recommend Michael Crichton's State of Fear. He has an extensive bibliography at the back of the book of the articles and books he read and referenced in the novel.
Merry reading, belag.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
I'm glad you said "ene
March 13, 2007 - 10:25 ET by sarcasmoI'm glad you said "energy" instead of just the obvious & more-specific infrared radiation, because apparently a variety of wavelengths of radiation interact with Earth's atmosphere, in ways we might not fully understand. Anyone who has seen the "northern lights" knows this. And maybe I've missed it, but have any of our lefty friends addressed the other-planets-getting-warmer-too issue honestly? If so, please point out where, as I have yet to see it...
JMR
The lefties have an excuse fo
March 13, 2007 - 12:30 ET by moabgoesboomThe lefties have an excuse for everything. It's not the sun's fault that Mar's polar caps are melting... it's this. Notice, though, in this article it attributes climate change to earth for the very same reason and says nothing of CO2 emissions.
I guess the alarmists didn't read far enough into the article to realize that their defense had been breached.
You can't support the troops if you don't support the mission.
Ok, you're right, I've seen
March 13, 2007 - 13:25 ET by sarcasmoOk, you're right, I've seen the "Mars wobbles" theory, but for that one to really hold I think it would have to be expanded to something less-likely-sounding like "Mars wobbles, and it wobbles at the exact rate & in the exact way as the various other planets with inconvenient warming numbers wobble," right? Now, maybe they all DO wobble-together, but it would seem to me that things like asteroid impacts and other random events such as non-earthquakes and volcanic eruptions make this scenario unlikely, IMO.
JMR
You convinced me! "I perso
March 13, 2007 - 10:38 ET by old croYou convinced me!
"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."
- Chris Landsea, on resigning from the IPCC
If you don't believe in God, you will believe ANYTHING!
March 13, 2007 - 12:04 ET by onceadadResistance to tyranny is obedience to God.
Liberals are always telling me how stupid I am. It's kind of funny for people to be so smug. In the 60s and 70s, Love was what we were being bombed with.
Now, I am supposed to TOLERATE people. But, they won't reciprocate. We do have a state religion. It's Global Warning. The highest sacrament of the godless church, is to choose to kill your unborn baby.
I have a wonderful quote from a P.D. James novel. (Yes, I can reed, cuz I got huked on funics!)
"I can understand the poor and stupid voting for Marxism or one of it's fashionable variants. If you have no hope of being other than a slave, you may as well opt for the most efficient form of slavery."
Belag,First of all thanks for
March 13, 2007 - 15:32 ET by steviep831Belag,
First of all thanks for your calm, cool headedness. I
have found it thoroughly lacking on both sides of the issue... it's a
very hot topic and one very near and dear to my heart as I
whole-heartedly believe that what we are facing is not global warming,
but a push, by many people in the world, of socialist agendas disguised
as environmental activism. Something I think is much more dangerous
than a half degree increase in global temperatures.
Secondly, I'd like to point out that while you did remain level headed in your
response, you did in fact not really defend your point of view. You
mentioned several times that scientific consensus is notunanimity, yet you continued to push that "almost every major
scientific organization on Earth" believes what you believe. How does
that resolve itself knowing that scientific consensus in the past has
shown intself to be wrong about major scientific issues in the past?
Now I'm not saying that just because consensus is wrong in the past,
that it means it's wrong in this issue, but as you've stated in your
response, a scientist should always keep an open mind.
Thirdly, your response was long yet you failed to cover the topic at all
concerning what is the central and key foundation of global warming
alarmist. It was raised in the video... no mention in your response.
That there is proof that CO2 levels do not lead global temperatures.
But just the opposite. Now if this is true, how can it be that in the
last century CO2 emissions have increased 30% yet global temperatures
have only risen less than a degree? Somethings not right here. The
theory that temperature leads CO2 makes sense even to a high school
students. Why not to leading scientists around the world? I'm also not
saying here that this is the only mechanism, but it certainly looks
like one pausible avenue.
Reply
March 13, 2007 - 20:51 ET by belagResponse to steviep831:
Thanks for your response. I'm sorry for the delay, I missed your post.
On Scientific Consensus
.You are right that scientific consensus has been proved wrong in the past. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't believe in the scientific consensus. Let me elaborate. The way scientific method is, it formulates theories, and if the the observations fit the theory, our confidence is increased. If the observations don't fit the theories, we modify or discard the theory.
A scientific theory is the best we have at the moment. Who knows in the future, observations may invalidate that theory. But we can't say that the theory is wrong, we won't act upon it. Every progress in science is like that. This is basic.
Science does not claim to know the universe. It gives theories. Some are relatively more accepted, some are not. That's the way it is. It's useless to search for the "truth". At all times, you assume you know the truth and look for inconsistencies. That's the scientific method.
When I say that scientific consensus is not unanimity, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't aim for such a vigorous theory that it becomes unanimous. What I wanted to say is that there will always be dissidents. You look at the balance of evidence. And in this case, the evidence is overwhelming.
On CO2 emissions
First, let me ask you a question. Why do you believe the movie's explanation of how CO2 influences greenhouse effect? You just saw it? Did you confirm it from any other source? Isn't independent verification what we should do?
Next, why do you believe that the CO2 levels and temperature change are inconsistent with the models? Because the movie says so? I have quoted the relevant section of the IPCC report in the above post. The models adequately explain the temperature change in the 20th century and indeed the time before that.
I wish to emphasise, who do you believe? The IPCC report, which, in addition has been supported by every major organization in the world? Or a global warming movie? Whichever you believe, the minimum you should do is an independent verification.
Man, did the New York Times
March 13, 2007 - 10:39 ET by Dave in TexasMan, did the New York Times get hacked or something? The thing that amazed me most were the references to the medieval warm period... and no immediate followup quote from some alarmist trying to claim that the medieval warm period never existed.
Reply
March 13, 2007 - 11:25 ET by belagThank you for your responses. I will go by your points one by one.
First, let me make this clear. I am looking for expert, scientific evidence. Media reports do NOT constitute scientific evidence. If you have an original source for the claims, do tell me. However, let me try to address the points which you make.
On global cooling
Let's examine the evidence of global cooling. You quoted Times of India, Newsweek and Healthgoods.com (I'm not sure what exactly that is). It does mention the "global cooling scare" that was briefly popular in the 1970s. Let's see how it holds up.
Let's look at the Newsweek article you quoted: if you read through the whole article, it says that:
"The point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global cooling NEVER approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today. And for good reason: the tools scientists have at their disposal now vastly more data, incomparably faster computers and infinitely more sophisticated mathematical models render any forecasts from 1975 as inoperative as the predictions being made around the same time about the inevitable triumph of communism."
The three articles were pretty vague as to their sources, I couldn't really tell.
So let's look at what was the consensus in the 1970s?
(I've cribbed a few of these sources from wikipedia, but they have the merit of being verifiable and respectable)
First I want to quote the 2001 IPCC report which addresses this very issue (which in no way contradicts the observations).
http://www.grida.no/...
(I'm not an expert, but my understanding is negative forcing is basically cooling)
Next, the expert, Connolley, who was quoted in Newsweek, has given on his site:
http://www.wmconnoll...
The World Climate Conference
"Conclusion. No simple conclusion emerges from this review... A first impression that one gains is of underlying stability... Overwhelmingly, however, the main climatic stress of the past decade has been due to short-term climatic anomalies of precipitation... (c) the recent trend of atmospheric and sea surface temperatures has been downward, at a rate of 0.1 to 0.2 oC per decade, at least in the NH. It may be offset by heating due to atmospheric contaminants such as added CO2, or chemical synthetics. The general trend of planetary temperatures has been downward for 50 million years [this statement is weakly supported by p 57]. The present decline, however, is probably part of a shorter-term fluctuation typical of records of the more recent past [p 79-81]"
In brief, what it says is that the cooling is a short term trend which may be offset by CO2 increases. The point to be noted is that it was very uncertain. More research was needed. And indeed more research was undertaken.
Now, there's a very good reason I don't admit newspaper/media in this discussion. It's very hard to check their sources and there's quite a lot of misrepresentation. In fact, the article by Newsweek you mentioned is a kind of retraction of their "scare" 30 yrs ago.
If you can find me anything which remotely indicated a consensus existing in 1970s I would be thankful.
The impact of the sun
I was only able to check a few of the links of the planet Mars, Jupiter and so on since some of the links required subscriptions.
First, none of the articles mention that all the warming on Mars, Jupiter etc. are related in some way. In fact, in every article it's mentioned that further study is needed.
http://www.space.com...
Second, one article mentions the sun's role. I quote:
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," Willson said.
...
"Further satellite observations may eventually show the trend to be short-term."
...
"That does not mean industrial pollution has not been a significant factor, Willson cautioned"
Basically, my reading of the report is, people are not certain it's long term, and even if it's long term it does not rule out the man-made contributions.
The last pdf document you list, which indeed is worth reading, notes in its abstract:
It mentions the correlation between solar activity and temperature:
"My analyses show that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by an incorrect handling of the physical data.
Since the graphs are still widely referred to in the literature and their misleading character has not yet been generally recognized, I have found it appropriate to deliver the present overview."
In fact, it says that the correlation is misleading and based on false data.
belag, you play with words and definitions
March 13, 2007 - 11:49 ET by RJbelag, scanning your long, long posts, I see that you play with words, definitions and sources, causing me to suspect everything you say. For example:
No matter how you try to cloak it, "consensus" is "opinion", not fact.
Even so, you later claim scientific "consensus" has become scientific "conclusion".
Using Wikipedia as a source and proclaiming it "respectable" identifies your piece not likely to be honestly pursuing truth.
Adding to the above is your habit of talking down and your providing much opinion with little actual argument. I love a good debate as much as the next poster, but, all in all, I think you've done nothing more than attempt to overwhelm the discussion with a long, long laundry list of Anthropogenic Global Warming propaganda.
Let's not also mention that t
March 13, 2007 - 12:11 ET by dscottLet's not also mention that the IPCC's sole reason for existence is "man made" climate change. Any deviation from such dogma by acknowledging the cyclical nature of climate or any alternative explanation means an immediate end of this organization's existence. Hence, anything the IPCC puts out there is immediately suspect as self serving propaganda. As we all know or should know, propaganda is slickly packaged info. or rather disinfo. to mislead those whom it is aimed at. Citing the IPCC is no different that claiming the skeptics are on the oil companies payroll.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
belag - I've read all your posts. What is your point?
March 13, 2007 - 12:10 ET by acaiguanabelag - I've read all your posts. What is your point?
That the climate changes? Duh.
That man is 'inducing' this current warming trend (for the last century?) maybe?
I'll be the first to admit that man has an impact on the atmosphere in terms of regional areas subject to inversion (Mexico City, etc) and the 'Urban Heat Effect'. OK.
But have you looked at the planet itself lately?
There are a number of sources that discuss the planet itself without even starting in on the man made effects.
And your interest in the so-called data discrepancies between 1970 and 2007.
Do you really believe the data is that much better? I've got some hard core news for ya, it ain't.
Now, just for grins. Have you ever studied a 'model'? I doubt it. Because if you knew anything about computerized models you would understand immediately that the models are dependent upon three things.
1. The quality of data available for each data pile. Pile in this case would correspond to the item being chosen for measurement. Which somehow or other takes us to ...
2. The model attributes chosen to represent the condition being modeled. Huh? Yeah, that is right. Humans choose the items (attributes) of the model. And when you choose the attributes you have to define whether you are modeling a closed or an open 'system'. That hasn't even been determined. So, the models are subject to suspicion even before we start running around looking at or collecting data.
3. The assumptions made about the attributes being modeled. These assumptions are of such a nature that by definition they have to 'make all other things being equal' as their base. That is cheap talk for saying, we can't predict human behavior into the future.
So, what we have here is a buncha BS models that have little if any meaning to the real world; cannot be used as predictive tools; are fallacious by default; and do not consider chaos or quantum mechanics. And if you want me to get really plain - they suck.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
One of the links, the one to
March 13, 2007 - 12:14 ET by MikeBOne of the links, the one to newscientist required a subscription to continue after the 4th paragraph. I don't recall the subscription requirement when I first searched for that information. However, the other five planetary/moon global warming links do not require subscriptions. And, the argument still stands: if global warming is occuring on the various planets and moons in the solar system, what makes you think that global warming here is caused by man, when it would be impossible for man to cause the global warming experienced by other solar bodies? On the other planets/moons it is caused by the sun, but on Earth it is caused by Man? Is that a reasonable assumption or conclusion?
The mean temperature may have increased on this planet by one degree farenheit in the last century. One degree in 100 years is not outside the limits of natural variability, nor is it anything to be worried about.
As for Kyoto, if it were honestly implemented by all countries on earth (including China, India, and Brazil, who are exempt from it), Kyoto would only lower the mean temp world-wide by only an estimated 1 tenth of 1 degree Celsius in the next 100 years. And for this you would destroy the economies of the industrialized world? No, thank you.
The European countries who have signed on to Kyoto, have not been able to meet their carbon emissions reduction goals. In fact, if I recall correctly, those countries have not reduced carbon emissions at all, but their emissions have increased. I don't think they need to lecture the U.S. about emissions, until they have walked the walk and seen the impact on their economies and standards of living.
By the way, belag, what exactly would your solution to AGW, if it exists be? We (the US) aren't allowed to build new nuke plants to generate electricity. Solar cells are too expensive, and the materials used to make them are extremely toxic. Wind turbines are anathema to the animal rights people, as birds get chopped up by the blades of the windmills, and people like Ted Kennedy have a NIMBY attitude toward wind farms. Tidal generators would disrupt ocean current flow, with unknown consequences for weather patterns. So, what solutions would you recommend?
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
A few more comments
March 13, 2007 - 12:38 ET by belagIn the beginning, a plea. As I mentioned, I'm looking to argue whether there exists a scientific consensus on global warming caused by humans. It is within this narrow scope the discussion is taking place. I gave point by point evidence. If you have any problems with the specific points, do tell me. It's the most reasonable way to have a rational debate.
Play on words?
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about what the defintions are. Here it is:
"Scientific
consensus is the balance of evidence established by major scientists
through publishing in the peer-reviewed literature and position statements of major
scientific organizations. It does not mean there should be unanimity."
As
for the wikipedia comment, I just said that the I got the source from a
wikipedia page. The source itself a) an IPCC report b) the World
Climate Conference
As respectable and verifiable as you can get.
ACA's post:
First, my point was the following:
My belief is global warming/climate change is real and most likely caused by humans.
Just my belief, and I gave point by point evidence for that.
Next, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by bullshit models? See, I'm not an expert on the issue. May I ask, are you an expert on climatology? Are your statements about bullshit models supported by any other major scientific organizations? If not, why should I believe you?
MikeB
As I said, none of the articles mentioned that the warmings of the other planets were in any way related. Is the warming on all the planets uniform? The same amount? The same time period as the warming on Earth? To say that it's all due to the sun warming is unsupported by any evidence. If you have any evidence, do tell me.
Second, as I mentioned, I'm first trying to argue whether global warming is real and caused by humans. If we are decided about that, we can argue about Kyoto or nuclear power or anything else. I'll be happy to respong with more posts on the subject.
Next, you say:
"The mean temperature may have increased on this planet by one degree
farenheit in the last century. One degree in 100 years is not outside
the limits of natural variability, nor is it anything to be worried
about."
Do you know of any major source which says that it's nothing to be worried about? I presented many sources which say it is of real concern.
belag - why should I care? And what is your point, again?
March 13, 2007 - 12:48 ET by acaiguanabelag - why should I care? And what is your point, again?
Just my belief, and I gave point by point evidence for that.
Next, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by bullshit models? See, I'm not an expert on the issue. May I ask, are you an expert on climatology? Are your statements about bullshit models supported by any other major scientific organizations? If not, why should I believe you?
It is not my place here to 'convince' you that man is causing or not causing global warming. Does man have some impact? Possibly. What is that impact? No one, not one person, scientist, politician, committee or genius out there can tell you.
Let me explain clearly to you in small words.
The climate models being used by all bodies as 'evidence' of man induced global warming are bullshit.
Get it?
ACA
<edit> you know what? I'm tired of you. Check this out.
"Calculated changes in climate variables will obviously depend upon the assumptions made regarding the future concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which are a function of projected population growth and associated economic expansion."
And in this paper some of the argument defends the models.
ACA
<end edit>
<second edit> And if you are really interested, read this. <end second edit>
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
You presented many sources in
March 13, 2007 - 13:03 ET by moabgoesboomYou presented many sources in support of your beliefs... except one. What is the motive behind this "concensus"?
(Hint) There's only one correct answer.
You can't support the troops if you don't support the mission.
belag...With your post, your
March 13, 2007 - 13:04 ET by bassndudebelag...With your post, your refering to a scientific concensus. Consensus is not science. In sicence, it either is, or it isint and must be backed by undeniable and non refuteable proof. And consensus is not it. IF man made golbal warming was really man made, there would be ample evidence. There is not. CO2 increases in the atmosphere would not be it. CO2 increases to not precede a tempertature increase, they follow it. There for rendering the theroy of increasing CO2 as the cause of said temp increase, false. The IPPC you speak so fondly of, are not sicentists. They are politicians and part of the UN body politic. They took a report endorced by a minority of $ minded scientists.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
scientific consensus is an oxymoron
March 13, 2007 - 13:11 ET by RJLike I said, belag, you play with words, definitions and sources. (Pssst: that's a nice way of calling you the "L" word.)
1) The primary purpose of your posting is flawed, because "Scientific Consensus" is an oxymoron. "Consensus" means opinion, not fact, and it cannot become "conclusion", as you stated.
2) You give no cite to your "definition" of "Scientific Concensus". But, as you well know, it comes from Wikipedia, which you have denied using as a source.
3) The IPCC is a political organization, as is the WCC. The IPCC's recent report was created by politically (not peer) selected members.
4) If you like the IPCC so much, I'd suggest you read about Claude Allegre, the prominent French scientist who has recently removed himself from association with that organization. He had been an early, first-rank supporter. You won't find much about his change of mind in the MSM, though.
Prominent French scientist reverses belief in anthropogenic Global Warming...now a skeptic.
"Climate models and studies have failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming....increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena...Global warming is over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank...the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change are simplistic...the world would be better off if these denouncers became less political and more practical...not an artificial obstacle that creates fear."http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388
Ok, belag, let's cut to the c
March 13, 2007 - 13:12 ET by dscottOk, belag, let's cut to the chase on the issue. Say for the sake of argument that it was Mankinds fault. (Which I don't, but I'll humor you)
Who is going to do the cutting back? Let's be honest now, shouldn't those who consume the most, cut back the most? Shouldn't those who have the most financial ability, reward and incentive do the most? Should the poor of the world be made to do without so those who have the most continue their lifestyle? If you agree with that sentiment, then you need to have a conversation with Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Streisand and Brad Pitt about their wanton consumption of energy. We already documented Al Gore uses 20 times the energy of the Average American household on just one of his 3 houses. Tell me belag, how can you justify such wanton consumption even with buying carbon credits????? Al Gore belongs to the wealthy class of this country, the 5% (15 million) who own 70% of the personal wealth of the US. How can you justify laying on the backs of the American people (285 million), let alone on the backs of the world's poor, the burden of reducing energy consumption when Al Gore and his rich friends literally account for at least half of all residential energy consumption in the US? You do the math here belag, if Al Gore uses 20 times the electricity of the average American (and that's only one house of 3), do any of the rich 5% use any less than he does? So who therefore should be showing the leadership in cutting back?
The ugly truth here is if Al and his buddies were to live at our (285 million) level of energy consumption, we would meet your kyoto targets without even breaking a sweat.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Belag, you have posted source
March 13, 2007 - 16:52 ET by MikeBBelag, you have posted sources who have a political axe to grind, and who have presented catastrophic scenarios as inevitable; scenarios which even climatologists who believe in global warming find to be unrealistic. Let me qualify that statement: AlGore has presented such catastrophic scenarios as inevitable. A one degree increase in mean temperature is nothing to be worried about...my opinion. A twenty to thirty degree variation between night and day is not unusual here, yet we do not have daily catastrophes or crises. One degree fahrenheit (about 1/2 degree celsius) in one hundred years is not a crisis, nor a catastrophe. A one to two millimeter rise in sea level per year is also not a crisis or catastrophe. The sudden rise in sea level as depicted in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, flies in the face of physics. Any heat source which could melt that much ice to increase sea levels that much in that short of time would fry this planet.
And, you completely ignored my question in the last paragraph: assuming AGW is real, what would you have done about it? Ignore whether or not it is real, assume it is. What is your solution, given the constraints imposed by the enviros?
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Reply
March 13, 2007 - 22:52 ET by belagYou claim that all the sources I gave have a political axe to grind. Almos every major scientific organization has a political axe to grind? Most of the literature on global warming has a political axe to grind?
Let me pose a simple question. Suppose you wanted to demonstrate a scientific consensus on a theory, any theory, say Einstein's theory of relativity. How would you go about it? I leave it open-ended. Try to come up with how you'll go about showing it to a skeptic. Maybe that will give me an idea on how to approach my point.
Regarding solutions to this problem, if we cannot agree to whether a problem exists and how serious it is, we cannot talk about solutions.
I accept your offer of providing solutions, assuming, the problem is real. I will do so soon. I'm trying to demonstrate that there's a real problem first.
How about this problem: You
March 13, 2007 - 22:55 ET by NL207How about this problem: You appear to be completely taken in by this global warming alarmism without actually understanding any of the science, which is muh less certain than the alarmism.
A brief reply
March 13, 2007 - 23:24 ET by belagA brief reply to a brief comment.
I already mentioned I'm not an expert. Do you not believe in anything in which you're not an expert? How do you decide whether a certain thing is true or not? You examine the evidence from respectable, mainstream qualified organizations? If you suspect bias, do you check it against other respectable organizations?
I do not know what you mean by science is less certain than the alarmism. I'm guessing you mean alarmism in the media. I've already disassociated myself from the media. I focus the on the science which I claim to be quite certain giving evidence where appropriate.
Try common sense.The theory o
March 13, 2007 - 23:30 ET by NL207Try common sense.
The theory of human caused global warming does not stand the test of common sense for a whole host of reasons.
Al Gore's presentation of the subject does not even stand the test of truthfulness.
A brief reply
March 14, 2007 - 09:06 ET by belagAgain, a brief reply.
Please note, I have already said I have no interest in Al Gore. He doesn't represent my views. I don't defend him or his policies. I have no interest in his movie.
All right, I'll try common sense.
"The theory of human caused global warming does not stand the test of common sense for a whole host of reasons."
Let's hear your reasons.
I take it that the disappeari
March 13, 2007 - 13:11 ET by bassndudeI take it that the disappearing polar caps on mars are due to industrial pollution, also?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!