An Inconvenient Truth

OTBn

New member
Jan 2, 2006
567
0
0
Hey Randy - Denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance - the five stages of accepting global warming. Me thinks you are in stage 3 (as evidenced by your new global cooling theory). Let us know when you are depressed.;)
Randy almost wore me down… he almost had me convinced… I thought perhaps Randy really does know what he’s talking about!

I waffled back and forth but Randy’s perseverance was too strong and his google tactics were just sooooo impressive.

Dammit, just when Randy, under the influence of his svengali jjinvan, had me thinking this whole climate change (sorry, “global warming”) thingee just might be a “lefties” ploy, out pops Harper with the $1.5 billion Eco-Trust and Clean Air Fund to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases. Wait a minute… why is Harper doing this? WTF, this makes no sense – doesn’t Harper listen to Randy! I was sooooo close to calling Randy on this but he kept the google pipeline flowing and I relented (dammit, I’m soooo weak).

But I can’t hold back anymore… yesterday Harper ventures into his homeland base, into the sanctity of his hallowed Conservative support, the bastion of all that is Right… here’s Harper in Edmonton announcing a $155 million federal grant to study creation of a large-scale pipeline and storage network… Harper’s touting a technique that takes carbon dioxide normally released into the atmosphere and pumps it underground or into aging wells to help retrieve more oil or natural gas. "This is a dream that could truly change the world", Harper told reporters in Edmonton. Harper stated, “it has great potential to position Canada as a world leader in slashing climate-changing emissions.”

I’m just so damn confused Randy… what the hell is Harper doing? … it just makes no sense – there’s no need for any of that, right Randy? Randy, can ya help splain it?.
 

citylover

Member
Sep 24, 2006
247
0
16
It has now been disclosed that St. AlGore, the Goreacle of Global Warming,
RH doesn't know about what you talk because your source don't publish in mystical cyrillic texts or ain't an "unbiased source" like the esteemed Tennessee right wing "think tank" that is funded by Exxon and also, like RH & LD, continually rides on Gore cause they can't believe he's doing anything right

The source of this issue is the bogus report of the typical kind of bozos funded by Exxon in their disinformation campaign on global warming
Dept. of Revenue says conservative think tank ‘not a legitimate group’
By John Rodgers, February 16, 2007
The City Paper, Nashville, TN

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR), who bills themselves as an “independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research and educational institute,”
...
Reagan Farr, the new commissioner of the Department of Revenue, said the TCPR’s conservative ideology was not why their questions weren’t answered.
Their complete lack of professionalism is why,” Farr said.


However, it is good that all those scientists who worked for Big Tobacco denying links between smoking & cancer now have jobs w/ Big Oil denying global warming. The only question is, is RH a paid stooge or just a free stooge? Maybe he's hoping to cash in for 10 grand:

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study by Exxon thru AEI:
"Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today."
 
Last edited:

citylover

Member
Sep 24, 2006
247
0
16
But what do real scientists have to say? From The American Association for the Advancement of Science,

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activity is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society… The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years … The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas, is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years. The average temperature of the Earth is heading for levels not experienced for millions of years … Scientific predictions of the impacts … match observed changes … These events [evidence of global warming] are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible."


real he-man scientist --->





as vs.


Exxon funded scientist --->
 

Randy Whorewald

Orgasm donor
Sep 20, 2005
3,320
0
0
Greek Islands
www.randydyck.com
I’m just so damn confused Randy… what the hell is Harper doing? … it just makes no sense – there’s no need for any of that, right Randy? Randy, can ya help splain it?.
Anyone with even half a brain should be able to figure out that he's campaigning for re-election. Its not like he's the first politician to begin throwing money around before calling a vote. The libs are famous for it. You lefties ought to know that.

BTW - speaking of lefties our born again liberal leader seems to have found out about what a powerful tool going green is. But it wasn't always so:

Christine Stewart, who was the Liberal environment minister when Canada signed the Kyoto agreement in 1997, said none of her cabinet colleagues -- including current party leader Stéphane Dion -- supported her efforts to put a real plan in place to meet its ambitious targets.

In an interview with The Globe and Mail yesterday, Ms. Stewart said she told her colleagues that Kyoto would require tough action from the provinces because they control the main sources of greenhouse gases, such as power plants and natural resources. But the provinces objected and their opposition was reflected in cabinet by Mr. Dion, who was then intergovernmental affairs minister, she said.

"Stéphane Dion was the minister of intergovernmental affairs and the whole issue [of Kyoto] was creating horrible consternation among the provinces," she recalled. "Frankly, the environment wasn't an intergovernmental topic that our government wanted to expend their opportunity on. They had to worry more about getting a health agreement with the provinces or financial issues and we couldn't get [the provinces] angry and all upset about the environment.

"That was [Mr. Dion's] role. 'Let's let this one lay low.' It was never said in so many words. I think what I am saying is he wasn't against [Kyoto], but he was not a champion. But then he wasn't unique. If you can find a champion [in that Liberal cabinet], let me know," she said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070308.wxkyoto08/BNStory/National/home

Of course I fully expect Citylefty & Oh to Be Negative to say the Globe & Mail is aanother right wing source.
 

citylover

Member
Sep 24, 2006
247
0
16
Once again, RH shows his bravery in standing against accepted science, common sense, and the facts. He's more interested in standing w/ junk scientists funded by big oil, cause they throw the best parties.

I feel very comfortable standing w/ real scientists & their orgs representing most all real scientists in the world, like the

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (the world's largest general scientific society and one of the premier organizations dealing with science)

& the

National Academy of Sciences' statement.

The National Academies committees serve pro bono to address critical national issues and give advice to the federal government and the public. That is completely unlike your so-called "non-partisan policy" centers who espouse every loony right wing piece of crap they get paid to espouse, and your junk scientists who are funded by Big Oil & energy interests.

Four organizations comprise the National Academy of Sciences: the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council.

Their conclusion: "G8 nations have been responsible for much of the past
greenhouse gas emissions."

So that leaves the question, when are you going to post anything, anytime, anywhere that has a shred of credibility?

I, for one, will not be holding my breath.
 

Randy Whorewald

Orgasm donor
Sep 20, 2005
3,320
0
0
Greek Islands
www.randydyck.com
The principle of global warming is perfectly sound. What is lacking is a clear understanding of how much human activities influence the atmosphere.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
Really want to do something? Drive one of these.

The Subaru R1e is actually being sold in Japan. It achieves 100kph, gets 90 kilometers of range on a charge, (Pure electric car) and recharges quite quickly.

http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/06toronto/060206-19.htm
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=642
http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/subaru_concepts.html
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/12/_evworldblogs_h.html

If the Global Warming posterboy Al Gore was driving one of these instead of the largest SUV on the planet, I might reassess my feeling that he's a typical political hypocrite.
 

citylover

Member
Sep 24, 2006
247
0
16
What is lacking is a clear understanding of how much human activities influence the atmosphere.
Only to ideologues being the willing hand maiden of Big Oil & their multi-million dollar disinformation campaign to discredit anything & anyone talking about Global Warming. That's why y'all hate Gore so much, he's been so effective in informing people on the subject.

Because what is so hard for you to understand about the statement "G8 nations have been responsible for much of the past greenhouse gas emissions."

made by the

National Academy of Sciences?

Or what is so hard to understand the statement, "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.... The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."

Put out by The American Association for the Advancement of Science.


Oh, I know, you think what's wrong is it's not some junk science statement written in cyrrilic and sponsored by Exxon.


Now tell us again how you wake up in the middle of the night skeered that Gore is running for prez *snicker*guffaw*LOL -- just one of the many stupid statements you make on a regular basis, showing your ignorance.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
This'll drive Citylover crazy

The Bancroft - Arnesen trek to "prove" global warming resulted in Liv Arnesen getting frostbite due to "unexpectedly cold conditions"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_sc/polar_trek_1

Some of the Scientists who have published the work that led to the concern over global warming are criticizing Al Gore because of exaggerations and inaccuracies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

It seems that Al Gore's inability to know the difference between inches and feet and his desire to appeal to the lovers of furry critters leads them to believe that there is a danger of the real science being ignored and global warming being laughed off as a political stunt.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
Hmm there is an opportunity here

I was looking at this story in the Vancouver Sun.
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=712b6ff5-350c-4244-8818-6067f9bac4f5&k=59345

Right now, it's the "in" political buzz word to worry about global warming. I tend to discount the politicians bullshit because I think that most of their announcements on global warming are like the Liberal promises on "Honest Government", "Daycare", "Cancel the GST" or even "Lower Taxes"

When you see a Federal Liberal in BC, you know there is an election coming. They are never sighted west of Ontario at any other time.

However, there is this in the Sun story:

“The prime minister of Japan has a Canadian fuel cell in his official residence in Japan, providing electricity and hot water.”

While fuel cells for cars won’t be affordable for the average person for several years, Tak said micro fuel cells being developed in Canada for cell phones, for example, will be available to consumers before long.

“For transportation you have the internal combustion engine, which has huge subsidies built into it,” he said.

“So how are we supposed to compete with something that has subsidies when we are, in fact, not working with the same advantage? We’re not competing on a level playing field.”

I agree fully with what Tak is saying. Hydrogen Fuel Cells for personal transportation just don't make sense. Hydrogen Fuel Cells for Buses, Trains and Trucks do make sense and should be what we are developing.

But, there is a business opportunity here:
I can't be the only person who moved out of Vancouver so that I could put up my own Wind Turbine. In fact, I know I'm not. My neighbor has also completed installation of theirs. We both consume no power generated by BC Hydro. In fact, we both sell power to BC Hydro. This is because of sizing issues where you size your generation ability to the lowest wind levels and highest useage levels and you end up generating more power than you use about 90% of the time.

A Hydrogen Fuel Cell like the one the Japanese Prime Minister has would accomplish 2 things. One, it eliminates the Propane necessary to raise the heat of the water from the ground coils. Two, it eliminates the Propane fueled generator that makes up for the surplus electricity consumed on cold, windless days.

The problem with any Off-Grid Power System is how do you store the surplus electricity generated on optimum days so that you can use it on cold, windless days?

The answer always comes down to a combination of batteries and generators.

It's not rational to use hydrogen to power a generator. You get into a bunch of storage issues, scrubbing water vapour issues, and octane issues. Pure Hydrogen under pressure is a bastard to store. Scrubbing the water out of Hydrogen is a Toxic Procedure and if you don't scrub the water out, you can't use it in an engine. Unscrubbed Hydrogen just doesn't have the energy to be the fuel for an engine.

However, unscrubbed Hydrogen is a perfectly good fuel for a Fuel Cell. It is easy to store unscrubbed Hydrogen, it's easy to make unscrubbed Hydrogen and it may be the answer for all the Off-Gridders out there.
 
Last edited:

deslicher

New member
Jun 25, 2006
234
0
0
I admit i'm not as politically or scientifically savvy as any of you folks, but (Not being sarcastic either)...does anyone remember the last time New Orleans drowned?? Seriously?

I saw the movie....And have genuine concern....so I will continue to recycle and maybe consider a hybrid vehicle in the future...

Oh another thing.....Why can't Calgary recycle plastic? Seriously again? Is it because it's too expensive? It doesn't breakdown favourably in the environment.....I read somewhere that it may contribute to hermaphrodite reptiles and frogs without swimmers.......That's a scary thought.
 

mookster

Un Baratineur
Sep 29, 2005
164
1
18
Oh another thing.....Why can't Calgary recycle plastic? Seriously again? Is it because it's too expensive? It doesn't breakdown favourably in the environment.....I read somewhere that it may contribute to hermaphrodite reptiles and frogs without swimmers.......That's a scary thought.
Actually, you can recycle plastics in Calgary! Unfortunately, it is through any one of the private recycling companies that do "for a fee" pick-up. Cost is roughly $10/month and they pick up weekly. That was the primary reason I started using them... the second being convenience! I let my neighbours piggyback on my service, so we keep a lot of plastics out of landfill.

Mookster
 

deslicher

New member
Jun 25, 2006
234
0
0
Actually, you can recycle plastics in Calgary! Unfortunately, it is through any one of the private recycling companies that do "for a fee" pick-up. Cost is roughly $10/month and they pick up weekly. That was the primary reason I started using them... the second being convenience! I let my neighbours piggyback on my service, so we keep a lot of plastics out of landfill.

Mookster
Thanks for the info.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
I admit i'm not as politically or scientifically savvy as any of you folks, but (Not being sarcastic either)...does anyone remember the last time New Orleans drowned?? Seriously?

I saw the movie....And have genuine concern....so I will continue to recycle and maybe consider a hybrid vehicle in the future...

Oh another thing.....Why can't Calgary recycle plastic? Seriously again? Is it because it's too expensive? It doesn't breakdown favourably in the environment.....I read somewhere that it may contribute to hermaphrodite reptiles and frogs without swimmers.......That's a scary thought.
There really isn't any doubt that the Earth is warmer now than it was 400 years ago. There also isn't any doubt that some percentage of that global warming is due to the activities of us humans. There is even less doubt that the major locations of the humans responsible are North America and Europe where we consume much more than people in the rest of the world.

The question is what do we do about it? Do we play Al Gore's shell game where he buys "Carbon Credits" so that he can run a house that consumes U$30,000 in energy a year? Or do we all seek to become Off-Gridders as I have done and actually become net energy producers?

I would submit that if you are the poster child for the environment and correcting global warming, that you should walk the talk and not be a hypocrite. His property is plenty big enough to have a Wind Turbine and the wind maps say that he gets more wind than I do. (no, it's got nothing to do with him being a politician) There is also preheating the air and water your house uses through ground coils and the use of solar panels that can easily be done. He's done nothing to reduce his own use of energy except buy Carbon Credits.

There are a whole bunch of reasons other than global warming to control your energy use. It's a lot cheaper, even when you include the amortization of the equipment. You don't have to worry about a storm or other event impeding your utility's ability to deliver energy. You have your costs fixed and are not at the mercy of the market for your energy.

All it takes is a little planning and educating the civic governments to allow you to build in an energy efficient manner.

By the way, the plastic that is collected for recycling in most Canadian cities goes to China and other countries who find post consumer waste to be cheaper than raw materials.

New Orleans is a prime example of our wasteful ways. In order for New Orleans to exist and grow they have ruined a river and it's estuaries. They have destroyed the ecosystem causing the death of shell-fish, fish, birds and animals.

And Yet, Hypocrites like Gore think that you can have something as wasteful as New Orleans and still score political points on environmental issues.

Three years ago much of New Orleans was flooded. Not because of global warming, but because they didn't want to build dikes big enough and extensive enough to prevent known problems. They shouldn't be rebuilding in the lower lands that are below mean sea level and nobody should insure the fools that do.
 

Randy Whorewald

Orgasm donor
Sep 20, 2005
3,320
0
0
Greek Islands
www.randydyck.com
now it hits brothels

Global Warming: now it hits brothels

Brothel owners in Bulgaria are blaming global warming for staff shortages.

They claim their best girls are working in ski resorts because a lack of snow has forced tourists to seek other pleasures.

Petra Nestorova, who runs an escort agency in Sofia, said: 'We have hired students, but they are temps and nothing like our elite girls.'

link:

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=39945&in_page_id=2
 

rollerboy

Teletubby Sport Hunter
Dec 5, 2004
903
0
0
San Francisco
There really isn't any doubt that the Earth is warmer now than it was 400 years ago.
Sure. But do we really want to dial back the clock four centuries? "Little Ice Age" was pretty overrated, unless you like glacier walks.

Three years ago much of New Orleans was flooded. Not because of global warming, but because they didn't want to build dikes big enough and extensive enough to prevent known problems. They shouldn't be rebuilding in the lower lands that are below mean sea level and nobody should insure the fools that do.
That, and New Orleans has sacrificed much of its barrier islands and protective marshes to development.
http://www.time.com/time/reports/mississippi/orleans.html
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com...ographic.com&fs=plasma.nationalgeographic.com

Hurricane experts have demolished claims that Global Warming has thus far resulted in significant hurricane activity. No one can (accurately) predict the future, and perhaps in the future there will be an impact, but the present "scientific consensus," for those who depend on such things, is that no significant link has been established.

Politicization of science is a sad thing to see. Professors of Climatology receiving death threats, newspaper columnists tarring distinguished atmospheric scientists with the Holocaust term, "Denier."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml

Witchhunts against respected scientists for expressing skepticism is obscene. Einstein was skeptical about critical aspects of Quantum Mechanics, the foundation of modern physics. They didn't turn him into a pariah or try to lynch him over it. The questions he raised, such as the EPR paradox, motivated significant inquiry into the foundations of QM, resulting in celebrated results such as Bell's Theorem, and the Aharanov-Bohm Effect. At worst, Richard Lindzen and Henk Tennekes are wrong about Global Warming, but these are two of the world's leading experts in their respective fields of atmospheric science.
 
Last edited:

citylover

Member
Sep 24, 2006
247
0
16
Y'all convince me. The science to trust come from those not being able to publish in peer reviewed journals & have to get their unpublished science reports out to the public in popular newspapers and mags, w/ the help of PR/lobbying firms who only coincidentally have oil industry clients.

I mean, who needs peer review when ya got your conclusions all worked out in advance?

(We can just ignore those messy political charges leveled at the skeptics -- y'know, Fabrication of data; Distorted interpretation of conclusions; Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results. They're just part of the political process we call "science for lobbyists". That's the way it goes w/ the Swiftboat Scientists)

Or those who pick at minor innaccuracies in a presentation ("Gore invented mosquitos?")

So the skeptics about global warming were right. We have nothing to worry about.








Oh, & here's that link to the Gore spoof you were looking for:

Al Gore YouTube Spoof Not So Amateurish
Republican PR Firm Said to Be Behind 'Inconvenient Truth' Spoof
 
Last edited:

Avery

Gentleman Horndog
Jul 7, 2003
4,782
19
38
Winnipeg
There are dissenters, and they're not all in Big Oil's back pocket:

Debunking global warming myths

Winnipeg Sun March 14, 2007

By LICIA CORBELLA (Calgary Sun)

The British documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle is, well ... great.

The program, which aired last Thursday in the U.K. to much buzz, has since been watched by hundreds of thousands of others around the world via the Internet. It exposes numerous lies and myths presented as fact by those who believe in the unproven hypothesis that human-created carbon dioxide (CO2) is the driver of the Earth's warming climate.

The same broadcaster -- Channel 4 in the U.K. -- that recently exposed the extremist ideology being preached in Britain's supposedly "moderate" mosques has now similarly helped to tear away the veil of lies and religious zeal surrounding the global warming industry.

EXPERT OPINIONS

The film features an impressive group of experts in the fields of climatology, oceanography, biogeography, meteorology, and paleoclimatology from reputable institutions such as NASA, MIT, The International Arctic Research Centre, the Pasteur Institut in Paris, the Danish National Space Center and the Universities of Winnipeg, Ottawa, London, Jerusalem, Alabama and Virginia. That should help top the claims there is a consensus of scientists who believe in man-made global warming.

Expert after expert in this film blasts craters into the theory that CO2 -- which only makes up 0.054% of the earth's atmosphere -- has ever driven climate. Ice core records, in fact, prove the opposite, that CO2 lags warming by as much as 800 years.

The main cause of warming is, not surprisingly, the sun.

"The analogy I use," says Dr. Tim Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, "is my car's not running very well, so I'm going to ignore the engine, which is the sun, and I'm going to ignore the transmission, which is the water vapour and I'm going to look at one nut on the right rear wheel which is the human produced CO2. The science is that bad."

The film starts off covering indisputable facts. There was a Medieval Warm Period that was warmer than today -- that led to incredible wealth in Europe when the bulk of the continent's great cathedrals were built and when Britain had thriving vineyards. Then came the Little Ice Age that started in the 17th century and was so cold London's Thames River would freeze so solidly festivals were held on it.

About 10,000 years ago, during a time known as the Holocene Maximum, it was much warmer even than the Medieval times.

The end is nigh?

Dr. Ian Clark, Prof. of Isotope Hydrogeology and Paleoclimatology at the U of Ottawa, notes polar bears (which have become the poster-animal of the global warming industry) survived that sustained warm cycle and that volcanoes produce more CO2 every year than all human activity. What's more, prior to 1940 temperatures on Earth were rising long before industrialization took place.

Then, when carbon dioxide emissions rose markedly in the post-war economic boom period, temperatures fell for the next three decades, again, in direct contravention of the theory being espoused and believed by so many. Ironically, in the 1970s, just as scientists started predicting another climate catastrophe -- an impending ice age -- the planet started warming again.

The documentary ends with a quote from Dr. Fred Singer of the U of Virginia. "There will still be people who believe this is the end of the world, particularly when you have, for example, the chief scientist of the U.K. telling people that by the end of the century the only habitable place on the Earth with be the Antarctic and humanity may survive thanks to some breeding couples who move to the Antarctic. I mean, this is hilarious," he says with a chuckle. "It would be hilarious, actually, if it weren't so sad."

See the film at:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog?entry=24760&only
 

citylover

Member
Sep 24, 2006
247
0
16
There are dissenters, and
they must be right because they're skeptical of accepted science. & they can't be wrong from the get go, as long as they tell us it's OK to drive our SUVs to the mall every day.

& in this day & age of the interenet their biases, mistakes, & unproven assertions can't be found :rolleyes: . & they just coincidentally fit Big Oil's PR campaign, & the right wing ideologues who just hate anything that smacks of environmentalism.

It's a great swindle alright. Swiftboat Scientists... "people whose findings have already been proved wrong"... what would we do w/o ya? If we just create the controversy, people will believe... global warming ain't nuthin'; tobacco ain't addictive & don't cause cancer; evolution is just a theory no better than Creationism; the earth is flat, don't you have eyes?

A source at Channel 4 said: "It is essentially a polemic and we are expecting it to cause trouble, but this is the controversial programming that Channel 4 is renowned for."

The real global warming swindle
A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors
By Steve Connor
Published: 14 March 2007

A Channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming is a swindle was itself flawed with major errors which seriously undermine the programme's credibility, according to an investigation by The Independent.

The Great Global Warming Swindle, was based on graphs that were distorted, mislabelled or just plain wrong. The graphs were nevertheless used to attack the credibility and honesty of climate scientists.​

The Great Global Warming Swindle -- George Monbiot

...Professor David Bellamy, for example, while making the incorrect claim that wind farms do not have "any measurable effect" on total emissions of carbon dioxide, has compared himself to Galileo (1).

The problem with "The Great Global Warming Swindle", which caused a sensation when it was broadcast on Channel 4 last week, is that to make its case it relies not on future visionaries, but on people whose findings have already been proved wrong.

The film's main contention is that the current increase in global temperatures is caused not by rising greenhouse gases, but by changes in the activity of the Sun. It is built around the discovery in 1991 by the Danish atmospheric physicist Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen that recent temperature variations on earth are in "strikingly good agreement" with the length of the cycle of sunspots (2).

Unfortunately, he found nothing of the kind. A paper published in the journal Eos in 2004 reveals that the "agreement" was the result of "incorrect handling of the physical data" (3). The real data for recent years show the opposite: that the length of the sunspot cycle has in fact declined, while temperatures have risen.

When this error was exposed, Friis-Christensen and his co-author published a new paper, purporting to produce similar results(4). But this too turned out to be an artefact of mistakes they had made -- in this case in their arithmetic (5)....

This is the mechanism the film proposes for global warming. But, yet again, the method was exposed as faulty. They had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics shows that when the right data are used, a correlation is not found (7).

So the hypothesis changed again. Without acknowledging that his previous paper was wrong, Friis-Christensen's co-author, Henrik Svensmark, declared that there was in fact a correlation -- not with total cloud cover but with "low cloud cover"(8). This too turned out to be incorrect (9).....

Professor John Christy speaks about the discrepancy he discovered between temperatures at the earth's surface and temperatures in the troposphere (or lower atmosphere). But the programme fails to mention that in 2005 his data were proved wrong, by three papers in Science magazine (13,14,15).

Christy himself admitted last year that he was mistaken. He was one of the lead authors of a paper which states the opposite of what he says in the film. "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....This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected."(16)...

This is a familiar story to those who have followed the career of the director, Martin Durkin. In 1998 the Independent Television Commission found that, when making a similar series, he had "misled" his interviewees about "the content and purpose of the programmes". Their views had been "distorted through selective editing" (18). Channel 4 had to make a prime-time apology....

Channel 4 has always had a problem with science. No one in its science unit appears to understand the difference between a peer-reviewed scientific paper and a clipping from the Daily Mail. It keeps commissioning people whose claims have been discredited -- like Martin Durkin and a certain nutritionist of our acquaintance. But its failure to understand the scientific process just makes the job of whipping up a storm that much easier. The less true a programme is, the greater the controversy.

& on & on & on & on....

Geeeeezzzz, can't anyone use the search function on this here internet thingy?

Like shooting fish in a barrel

I say again --
(yawn) -- don't they ever get tired of being dead ass wrong?
 
Last edited:

Randy Whorewald

Orgasm donor
Sep 20, 2005
3,320
0
0
Greek Islands
www.randydyck.com
Last edited:
Vancouver Escorts