An Inconvenient Truth

[nube]

The REAL problem is WHO do you believe and why??? We have been told so much bullshit by the media and politicians over the years, that we either have to BELIEVE it all or we question it all.

If you think about it how many lies have we had over the past years. My earliest recolection is the 1972 gas issue - what happened after??/ Well the price went up and stayed up and we all started to drive little Japanese cars. Soon we decided that we wanted our SUVs notice the govenments did nothing when that happened, so now when so many have invested 50-60 grand, the global warming warnings are out.

I am not disputing or acknowledging the facts one way or the other (yet) But just pointing out so things .

The one thing for sure, is that 'they' DO know how to get us common folk fighting and bickering amongst our selves.

Where was Al Gore, when hummers came out???

 

[freebird]

Where was Al Gore, when hummers came out???

I think you may be thinking of BILL CLINTON!!

 

[sdw]

sometimes it's too easy to out the hypocrites

Al Gore, 75mph in a 55 mph zone. Driving a Lincon Town Car
run a search on Al Gore Speeding Ticket. Here is the link that I chose to post: http://www.hedgehogreport.com/index.php/category/oddities/

Al Gore, Caddilac Escalade used to get to the Sierra Club Conference. No this not the vehicle provided by the secret service. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1484727/posts
again there are many other links that can be obtained by running a search.

There is an article in Slate that talks about the moral flaws in Al Gore's presentation. http://www.slate.com/id/2142319/

Why does it bother me when people like Al Gore own an issue?

There is a real need to conserve the resources the earth has, develop ways of doing things that don't release unnecessary heat or carbon and raise the standard of living in the remainder of the world.

When a hypocrite like Al Gore is the poster child, it is too easy to point to what they do vs what they say and make the real issue dissappear into the grap bag of quips on Jay Leno and others shows.

 

[Big Trapper]

Where was Al Gore, when hummers came out???

Back in the early 90's, after decades of more and more restrictive federally mandated fuel economy and exhaust emissions "guidelines", the US government decided that yet another round of guidelines was in order. However, just to satisfy the gas guzzling sector of society, the White House decided to allow an 'exemption' to the new rules for a certain class of vehicle - and thus was born the SUV!

...and guess who was in the White House at that time?

Bill Clinton and Al Gore!


An inconvenient truth, indeed...

 

[Randy Whorewald]

Hardly Randy - simply bring the discussion back to message, not the messenger.

When I read back through this thread there's too much sniping at Gore - challenging his legitimacy, led in part by yourself. More science... less Gore sniping.

The only sniping of any consequence in this, or any thread with your postings comes from you. There is pityfully little of anything in the way of substance. I had a look at your last 40 posts and that seems to be a common thread.

anyways, we now take you back to the message ...

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

see rest...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

Al Gore, 75mph in a 55 mph zone. Driving a Lincon Town Car
run a search on Al Gore Speeding Ticket. Here is the link that I chose to post: http://www.hedgehogreport.com/index.php/category/oddities/

Al Gore, Caddilac Escalade used to get to the Sierra Club Conference. No this not the vehicle provided by the secret service. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1484727/posts
again there are many other links that can be obtained by running a search.

There is an article in Slate that talks about the moral flaws in Al Gore's presentation. http://www.slate.com/id/2142319/

Why does it bother me when people like Al Gore own an issue?

There is a real need to conserve the resources the earth has, develop ways of doing things that don't release unnecessary heat or carbon and raise the standard of living in the remainder of the world.

When a hypocrite like Al Gore is the poster child, it is too easy to point to what they do vs what they say and make the real issue dissappear into the grap bag of quips on Jay Leno and others shows.

Good post SDW.

 

[Big Trapper]

...the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...

Christ, with all the money that the media has, they can't buy a weather forecaster that can accurately predict more than about 3 days into the future!

And these cocksuckers have the nerve to tell us what will be in 50, 100, 500 years?

Give me a break!

- A Denier and proud of it.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity


Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March.

Singer and Avery note that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.

 

[citylover]

Tobacco & nicotine don't cause cancer, either, as long as you make cigarettes.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

Did he really say that? I'm going to have to watch that again. Assuming he did say that, how about the rest of content of his movie? I still recall most of what he said being consistent with the ICPP's report.

He did say that aznboi. I call that fearmongering at its finest. But don't take my word for it read it by someone who loves Mr. Gore. The article also refutes other Gore statements.

http://blog.nam.org/archives/2007/02/al_gore_is_a_gr.php

 

[citylover]

Geeeezzzz, these guys keep spewing out the corporate line from the oil companies enough they hope that eventually even they'll believe it. I guess Darwin wuz wrong.

Y'all stand w/ big business, I'll take science over profits any time.

But, please... explain to me again how y'all believe Al Gore caused global warming on Mars, because them Russian oil scientists you trust so much told you so. The Russians are sooooooo good at science & technology & stuff.

I could use another laugh.

 

[forgottenrebels]

Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle.

So Henrik theorizes unstoppable global warming due to cosmic rays. Ok then if that's the case the extra man-made CO2 being thrown into the equation = really bad and the IPCC is right: we need to start now to build alternative fuels.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

Geeeezzzz, these guys keep spewing out the corporate line from the oil companies enough they hope that eventually even they'll believe it. I guess Darwin wuz wrong.

Y'all stand w/ big business, I'll take science over profits any time.

But, please... explain to me again how y'all believe Al Gore caused global warming on Mars, because them Russian oil scientists you trust so much told you so. The Russians are sooooooo good at science & technology & stuff.

I could use another laugh.

You keep coming up with the same ridiclous comment / joke about Gore causing Global warming on Mars? None of the intelligent posters here can understand why you're repeating that bullshit which I know you yourself don't believe and has nothing to do with this discussion. The main topic of this thread is about Gore's film concerning planet Earth. (THIS IS NOT ABOUT MARS). My main point for commenting here is the lack of scientific evidence indicating we (man) are mostly to blame for the global warming here on earth. I'm going to keep complaining until somebody comes up with an explanation that makes sense and is based on scientific evidence. And why shouldn't we complain? You're spewing a lot of gas - Where is your scientific evidence to support your claim? BTW -If you want to do your part, you should shut off your computer, and uplug it forever.

So Henrik theorizes unstoppable global warming due to cosmic rays. Ok then if that's the case the extra man-made CO2 being thrown into the equation = really bad and the IPCC is right: we need to start now to build alternative fuels.

I agree.

 

[Big Trapper]

Did somebody mention Mars?

Global warming extends to Mars, where the Martian polar ice cap is shrinking, where deep gullies in the landscape are now laid bare, and where the climate is the warmest it has been in decades or possibly centuries.

"One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age," NASA scientist William Feldman speculated after the agency's Mars Odyssey completed its first Martian year of data collection. "In some low-latitude areas, the ice has already dissipated."

Now THAT is interesting, and perhaps it could provide a clue about global warming here on Earth. If both planets are experiencing a warming trend (enough to melt glaciers and ice-caps type of warming), and most of us are fairly certain that there are no polluting Martians, and NASA tells us that Mars has no atmosphere to form a 'greenhouse effect', well maybe both planets share a common factor of some kind that is causing this parallel phenomenon.

The only common factor that I can think of is the Sun. Has fluctuating solar irradiance increased, thus causing this warming? Or is there some other common factor that I'm forgetting?

Perhaps one of the scientists in the debate can help me out here...

 

[Randy Whorewald]

PARIS (AP) - Scientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report Friday saying they have little doubt global warming is caused by man, and predicting that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level will "continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.

here's th link:

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20070202/D8N1IQQ80.html

And here's the report:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_PlenaryApproved.pdf

I have looked through the report and am unconvinced. The report is "here are our conclusions...what? You want data to go with it?" It is surprising that there are ZERO references to technical reports. As I was reading through it, there were footnotes. I thought, "oh, they must be references...let's see what the references are." Nope. The footnotes are definitions of things like "very likely". Then I thought, "maybe there is a list of reference documentation at the end." Nope. It is nothing but conclusions with no supporting details or references to supporting details. It is purely "here are the answers, trust us".

The funniest parts were the plots of CO2 that go back 100,000 years. Ok, but they mention in the report that the last CO2 peak was 125,000 years ago. I guess that upturn we are in now wouldn't look so scary if they included the very-similarly-shaped upturn that happened 125,000 years ago.

Give me a break folks. This is more than a joke!! This is science??

I want EVIDENCE dammit!!

113 scientists from around the world.. how does that work out as a percentage of ALL scientists?? Out of a few hundred thousand scientists in the world they could only find 113?? What's that.. .003% agree with Al Gore?

 

[aznboi9]

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged

see rest...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
Good post SDW.

I already posted a rebuttal article to that article, Randy. Btw, you can't make a comparison between one study vs a consensus report. And solar radiation is already included in the IPCC report as a contributing factor to global warming.

Give me a break folks. This is more than a joke!! This is science??

I want EVIDENCE dammit!!

113 scientists from around the world.. how does that work out as a percentage of ALL scientists?? Out of a few hundred thousand scientists in the world they could only find 113?? What's that.. .003% agree with Al Gore?

Are you kidding me? It's a summary report; if you want references, go to IPCC website that has a list of the publications and technical reports that provided the information for the summary. References are listed in the ones that I took a look at.

What more do you want? You are asking for a level of proof that no branch of science could possibly fulfill. If you are going to reject the findings of the IPCC based on the fact that you haven't read each and every study personally, then you are going to have to also reject evolution, the big bang and pretty much every scientific theory that's ever been made in the history of mankind. When your doctor tells you that your kid (if you have one) needs to get vaccinated, do ask him to list all the studies that have been done so that you can assess them all personally? Or do you take trust in the fact that the studies have been reviewed by qualified authorities and that the appropriate recommendations have been made based on the evidence available? (But wait, this website says they aren't effective and this one says they cause death. Vaccine science is still not settled!). I also find it ironic that you guys are so distrustful of people whom, from what I've heard, are world authorities on climate science working in a peer-reviewed process, yet are so willing to put all belief on blogs and internet websites where no level of checks for veracity exists. You cannot have it both ways.

The fact is is that we place a certain level of trust on those who are considered to be experts in fields of study that we are not knowledgeable in. Are they always right? Of course not. Biologists used to think that DNA was a linear strand of proteins. No scientific conclusion is ever made with 100% certainty. But you do the best with the information that is available. If new information is discovered that causes you to rethink that fine. That's just science.

I'm done.

 

[humanfly009]

Reading all the posts in this section... really makes me wonder at what capacity do these people who don't believe in global warming understand how it works. I guess they don't know anything about weather, climate, or the sun and its relentless barrage of energy it throws at our planet. Were basicly covering it in a nice warm blanket of CO2. Which stops short wave energy from escapeing our atomosphere, instead it returns to the ground, in a large convection cycle. With high ammounts of CO2 in our atomosphere or planet heats up exponetionally. I'm not saying theres anyway to stop it... its purely an undeniable fact that its happening.

Maybe these skeptics should read some scientific journals. You'd also realize what a danger living in Richmond and Delta is... Afterall that new Traffic Control Tower is designed to float on liquid earth... interesting..

 

[humanfly009]

probably the best post in a thread I've read in a long.. long time.

 

[OTBn]

So Henrik theorizes unstoppable global warming due to cosmic rays. Ok then if that's the case the extra man-made CO2 being thrown into the equation = really bad and the IPCC is right: we need to start now to build alternative fuels.

I agree.

Randy, you agree... to what? You agree that the "extra man-made CO2 being thrown into the equation = really bad"... or, you agree that the "IPCC is right"... or, you agree that "we need to start now to build alternative fuels"... or, all of the above? Have you just now seen the light?

 

[OTBn]

PARIS (AP) - Scientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report Friday saying they have little doubt global warming is caused by man, and predicting that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level will "continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.

here's th link:

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20070202/D8N1IQQ80.html

And here's the report:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_PlenaryApproved.pdf

I have looked through the report and am unconvinced. The report is "here are our conclusions...what? You want data to go with it?" It is surprising that there are ZERO references to technical reports. As I was reading through it, there were footnotes. I thought, "oh, they must be references...let's see what the references are." Nope. The footnotes are definitions of things like "very likely". Then I thought, "maybe there is a list of reference documentation at the end." Nope. It is nothing but conclusions with no supporting details or references to supporting details. It is purely "here are the answers, trust us".

The funniest parts were the plots of CO2 that go back 100,000 years. Ok, but they mention in the report that the last CO2 peak was 125,000 years ago. I guess that upturn we are in now wouldn't look so scary if they included the very-similarly-shaped upturn that happened 125,000 years ago.

Give me a break folks. This is more than a joke!! This is science??

I want EVIDENCE dammit!!

113 scientists from around the world.. how does that work out as a percentage of ALL scientists?? Out of a few hundred thousand scientists in the world they could only find 113?? What's that.. .003% agree with Al Gore?

Randy, with all your authoritative posturing it's surprising you haven't heard of the IPCC before... gee, a report... like it's their first. Surprising what you can find out there when you actually use "the Google"... hey, Randy?

yup - you got it Randy - the IPCC certainly isn't made up of the world's preeminent climate scientists... na, it's just a group of good ole boys who meet once and a while over pizza and beer. References? From those guys... c'mon

 

[OTBn]

I already posted a rebuttal article to that article, Randy. Btw, you can't make a comparison between one study vs a consensus report. And solar radiation is already included in the IPCC report as a contributing factor to global warming.



Are you kidding me? It's a summary report; if you want references, go to IPCC website that has a list of the publications and technical reports that provided the information for the summary. References are listed in the ones that I took a look at.

What more do you want? You are asking for a level of proof that no branch of science could possibly fulfill. If you are going to reject the findings of the IPCC based on the fact that you haven't read each and every study personally, then you are going to have to also reject evolution, the big bang and pretty much every scientific theory that's ever been made in the history of mankind. When your doctor tells you that your kid (if you have one) needs to get vaccinated, do ask him to list all the studies that have been done so that you can assess them all personally? Or do you take trust in the fact that the studies have been reviewed by qualified authorities and that the appropriate recommendations have been made based on the evidence available? (But wait, this website says they aren't effective and this one says they cause death. Vaccine science is still not settled!). I also find it ironic that you guys are so distrustful of people whom, from what I've heard, are world authorities on climate science working in a peer-reviewed process, yet are so willing to put all belief on blogs and internet websites where no level of checks for veracity exists. You cannot have it both ways.

The fact is is that we place a certain level of trust on those who are considered to be experts in fields of study that we are not knowledgeable in. Are they always right? Of course not. Biologists used to think that DNA was a linear strand of proteins. No scientific conclusion is ever made with 100% certainty. But you do the best with the information that is available. If new information is discovered that causes you to rethink that fine. That's just science.

I'm done.

Great post - thanks for providing a link for Randy to find his way over to the IPCC