Jump to content

Great article on Gore's "The Inconvenient Truth"


H20cooled

Recommended Posts

I found this @ LINK

 

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe

"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists

By Tom Harris

Monday, June 12, 2006

 

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

 

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

 

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

 

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

 

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

 

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

 

So we have a smaller fraction.

 

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

 

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

 

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

 

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

 

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

 

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

 

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

 

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

 

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

 

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

 

Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén

 

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

 

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

 

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

 

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

 

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, interesting, what’s the dif...

 

It makes you think and realize that maybe we are being lied to by someone or a group of someone’s with an agenda. They don't care if what they say is true or not, but when you have TONs of money it’s easy to confuse a lot of people into think that it’s true and that ALL scientists agree...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think anyone is silly enough to believe that all scientists think the same way.

 

t makes you think and realize that maybe we are being lied to by someone or a group of someone’s with an agenda.

 

....um ya, this is always the case in politics. Do you not think the someones in power now do not have an agenda?

 

They don't care if what they say is true or not

 

hmmmm, i dont agree.

 

easy to confuse a lot of people into think that it’s true

 

This reminds me of something else besides global warming.

 

 

 

Im not trying to say I agree one way or another here, im saying there is something going on and it needs a further look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't care if what they say is true or not

hmmmm, i dont agree.

I honestly believe that some people get so hung up on their cause that they choose to ignore the truth or something that contradicts their cause.

 

Case in point; The other day I was listening to a talk radio show and there was a lady on there arguing for her cause (stop all smoking in bars, etc..). The host of the show would ask her a question and the only thing she could say was the same line about how 2nd hand smoke is bad, bad ,bad. She wouldn't listen to any other proof, study, or argument that went against her cause, she was just completely sold on the cause and that it was right, period. It was really sad and she ended up sounding like a complete brain washed fool...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand where you are coming from...

 

We all know second hand smoke is bad. Thousands of non smokers die every year from lung cancer. It doesnt take a scientist or a study to tell me that smoking bars and restaraunts is a bad idea. Not to mention "studies" usually show results that are favorable to the person/company/government who funded the study.

 

The same can be said for Global warming. THe earth is warming and many say, it is due to CO2. Stats can be twisted so many different ways its hard to tell what is going on. It just doesnt make any sense to me why we shouldnt investigate further.

 

Moreover, we all know that our dependance on oil is not a good thing. Why shouldnt we try to reinvent ourselves(U.S) with some sort of new fuel,technology,energy? If we tried to lower CO2 emissons by developing alternatives, I do not see how it could hurt. Would it not invigor our economy and reinstate our prominence in the world? This is really why I dont understand the big hoopla about the global warming issue.

 

 

Take it with a grain of salt....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an ex-smoker so I'm the worst about people smoking around me or my family. But I don't really want to argue that whole thing. It was just really sad to listen to the lady that was SO hung up on her cause that even scientific evidence was not going to change her from spewing out the same thing over and over again. It was really quite sad and I think she actually did more harm to her cause then good.

 

I agree with investaging it further and I still think we should make an effort to control the emmisions.

 

I would love to see an alternative fuel source or multiple ones, competion is always a good thing. It would also be nice to get away from depending on getting our oil supply from countries that want to KILL us and see our way of life destroyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scientific evidence was not going to change her from spewing out the same thing over and over again.

 

This is my point. I dont need any scientific evidence to tell me that smoking is bad, along with second hand smoke. I am failing to see your point here.

 

 

I agree with investaging it further and I still think we should make an effort to control the emmisions.

 

I would love to see an alternative fuel source or multiple ones, competion is always a good thing. It would also be nice to get away from depending on getting our oil supply from countries that want to KILL us and see our way of life destroyed.

 

 

so why not go with the global warming thing. Nothing but good things will come from it? Am i beating a dead horse here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my point. I dont need any scientific evidence to tell me that smoking is bad' date=' along with second hand smoke. I am failing to see your point here.[/quote']

 

My point is this; when someone is SO obsessed with their cause (whether its smoking, global warming, or etc.) that they can no longer see anything else or even have a discusion then they no longer care that what they believe is true or false. Its all about the cause.

 

And I don't agree with you that "we" all know that 2nd hand smoke is bad for us. I think there has been a LOT of misleading studies done that make us believe this. As I said I personly hate it, and I stay away from places were people smoke. But I also believe that if most of the people in a bar smoke and you know there is smoking there then you should avoid it and let the people smoke there if they want. Banning it straight across the board because someone "feels" that its bad is wrong and we don't need to take more rights away from the people and give it to the government.

 

 

so why not go with the global warming thing. Nothing but good things will come from it? Am i beating a dead horse here?

 

I don't agree with this mentality at all, basically you are saying lets just lead people on with this whole global warming BS so we can force them to do what we think is right. This is my belief and I have NO right to force that on someone else, if they want to drive a HUGE Hummer then who am I to say they cannot especially if its not hurting the environment. The alternative fuel thing needs to come from us wanting to get away from the middle east countries not from us thinking the we are destroying the world even though we are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with your first statement.

 

And I don't agree with you that "we" all know that 2nd hand smoke is bad for us. I think there has been a LOT of misleading studies done that make us believe this. As I said I personly hate it, and I stay away from places were people smoke. But I also believe that if most of the people in a bar smoke and you know there is smoking there then you should avoid it and let the people smoke there if they want. Banning it straight across the board because someone "feels" that its bad is wrong and we don't need to take more rights away from the people and give it to the government.

 

However, the above quote is just outright rediculous. You are telling me that you dont think smoking/2nd hand smoke kills people and causes a plethora of health problems?

 

someone "feels" that its bad

 

There are lots and lots of scientists that do not feel smoking is bad, they know it is bad becuase they have studied its effects. Im not trying to be rude but this is just totally rediculous.

 

 

I feel you are being a bit silly. Do you think that all living things on earth share it? Do we breathe air, eat food, drink water, etc? So you are saying that polluting the Earth is OK as long as it doesnt interfere with your life(HumV). That is the problem....this is a sellfish point of view. You wont take action unless it effects your own life.

 

 

Even if half of climatologists thought global warming was not happening, wouldnt that be worth a second look. Seems like more than half of scientists feel global warming IS happeing.

 

global warming BS so we can force them to do what we think is right

 

What is the conspiracy theory on what the left is trying to do with global warming. I would really like to hear.

 

when someone is SO obsessed with their cause (whether its smoking, global warming, or etc.) that they can no longer see anything else or even have a discusion then they no longer care that what they believe is true or false. Its all about the cause.

 

Seems like you are the one obsessed that global warming is not happeing when it is clear that the majority of science points to the fact that CO2 is impacting climate.

 

Again, not trying to be rude and I am enjoying this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with your first statement.

 

 

 

However, the above quote is just outright rediculous. You are telling me that you dont think smoking/2nd hand smoke kills people and causes a plethora of health problems?

 

I'm not saying one way or another about it being bad, I just don't think that has been enough studies done to point one way. There has been a lot of feelings about it though. I'm reserving my opinion until there is good proof. If you want to know my person view, I believe that it is bad for people and child, but this is completely based on a feeling and not on facts. Therefore I choose to go to places that are no smoking, but I don't feel that no one has a right to smoke in a place that is for smokers.

 

But lets stop talking about smoking, I really didn't want to discuss it I was just using it as an example.

 

 

 

There are lots and lots of scientists that do not feel smoking is bad, they know it is bad becuase they have studied its effects. Im not trying to be rude but this is just totally rediculous.

 

There have also been studies that show it does not cause health issues.

 

I feel you are being a bit silly. Do you think that all living things on earth share it? Do we breathe air, eat food, drink water, etc? So you are saying that polluting the Earth is OK as long as it doesnt interfere with your life(HumV). That is the problem....this is a sellfish point of view. You wont take action unless it effects your own life.

 

No I feel that we all need to do our part to not pollute the earth. But until there is proof that the HumV is hurting the earth who am I to stop someone from driving one. I don't think this is a selfish view, I think that we all need to take responsiblity to do our part, whether that is a beach clean up, or taking the bus, or selling the HumV.

 

Even if half of climatologists thought global warming was not happening, wouldnt that be worth a second look. Seems like more than half of scientists feel global warming IS happeing.

 

I agree there needs to be some REAL research done without some political hollywood moron pushing it. When I read articles like the one I posted that says climatologists are afraid to speak out against the global warming machine, then you realize how much pressure there is to hide the facts.

 

What is the conspiracy theory on what the left is trying to do with global warming. I would really like to hear.

 

I have no idea, I didn't realize there was one, I'm not a big conspiracy theory buff. I do think there is a push by people like Gore to make us believe that Global warming is a FACT and that all cars are BAD.

 

Seems like you are the one obsessed that global warming is not happeing when it is clear that the majority of science points to the fact that CO2 is impacting climate.

 

Not obsessed at all, I just want to know the facts and not have them covered up by lies and miss information.

 

I have one question for you. Can you tell me if global warming is happening because of CO2 and humans. What happened to the last ice age if we were not around then?

 

 

Again, not trying to be rude and I am enjoying this discussion.

 

I am too, I'm trying not to take anything personally...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have also been studies that show it does not cause health issues.

 

Of course there has. Do you think there are many big issues out there that have studies only showing one side? I dont think so.

 

No I feel that we all need to do our part to not pollute the earth. But until there is proof that the HumV is hurting the earth who am I to stop someone from driving one. I don't think this is a selfish view, I think that we all need to take responsiblity to do our part, whether that is a beach clean up, or taking the bus, or selling the HumV

 

YOu are contradicting yourself. If we wait until there is conclusive evidence one way or another, it may be too late.....it may not be. So what do we do? We use the majority of evidence that we can find and take action. What doest he majority of evidence point to right now?

 

I agree there needs to be some REAL research done without some political hollywood moron pushing it. When I read articles like the one I posted that says climatologists are afraid to speak out against the global warming machine, then you realize how much pressure there is to hide the facts.

 

I dont think that there is a great deal of pressure. People do studies and publish what they find unless they are funded by someone with an agenda. What kind of pressure? TO defend their results? Scientists should feel pressure to perform quality experiments. If they do there job correctly there should be little room for fights like the global warming deal. And do you realy think people are out there locking data away in a closet that shows global warming isnt real?

 

Gore to make us believe that Global warming is a FACT and that all cars are BAD

 

Gore is done with his political career, what agenda does he have for doing this? IF you are talking about facts then we are going to debate this forever. There are lots of "facts" that were around 60 years ago that have been proven wrong and vice versa. So if you are looking for facts you may be looking a while.

 

Nobody thinks all cars are bad. Cars are good they just need to be improved. :)

 

lies and miss information.

 

Where are you getting this stuff? WHo is miss informing? Who? What? When? Where? How?

 

Can you tell me if global warming is happening because of CO2 and humans.

 

I believe it is happing because of CO2 and due in part to human activity. This is all based off of what I have read and I am not going to say that I am 100 percent sure I am right....but I am convinced. From all the stories I have read, both sides of the story for that matter, the arguments supporting global warming due to CO2/humans strikes me as more correct and lagitamate. I dont disagree that critics of global warming have some good points, I just think there is more evidence in favor.

 

What happened to the last ice age if we were not around then?

I dont know, i wasnt around. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YOu are contradicting yourself. If we wait until there is conclusive evidence one way or another, it may be too late.....it may not be. So what do we do? We use the majority of evidence that we can find and take action. What doest he majority of evidence point to right now?

I personaly have NOT seen a majority of evidence pointing towards US creating global warming, so I guess I'm on the wait side. But I still feel that we should do our best to not pullute our environment. If that contradictory then so be...

 

 

I dont think that there is a great deal of pressure. People do studies and publish what they find unless they are funded by someone with an agenda. What kind of pressure? TO defend their results? Scientists should feel pressure to perform quality experiments. If they do there job correctly there should be little room for fights like the global warming deal. And do you realy think people are out there locking data away in a closet that shows global warming isnt real?

I think there is a lot of pressure from hollywood and some politicians to push the Global warming issues. I think scientist are also influenced by peer pressure too, also its not very PC to come out against global warming.

 

 

Gore is done with his political career, what agenda does he have for doing this? IF you are talking about facts then we are going to debate this forever. There are lots of "facts" that were around 60 years ago that have been proven wrong and vice versa. So if you are looking for facts you may be looking a while.

I disagree that he is done, matter of fact I would argue the opposite of that. Read here!

 

 

I dont know, i wasnt around. :)

Exactly and thats the problem, what if this whole Global warming trend is just a completly normal thing that happens every XXXX amount of years...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what if this whole Global warming trend is just a completly normal thing that happens every XXXX amount of years...

 

 

Do you honestly believe that this kind of thing, if it is "normal", happens every XXX amount of years?

 

You talk about facts but then you talk about what ifs? What if its not a normal trend? What if we are on a path to disaster? What if nothing happens? What if the monkey penguin flies backward at midnight?

 

I can see you are stuck in your way of thinking and that is fine,maybe im stuck in mine. I just dont understand how if it is a fact that we are dumping a bunch of junk into the air, that it can be a good thing in any way shape or form. If it takes something like Global Warming to act as a catalyst for change, fine by me, regardless of its truthiness.

 

 

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/This-Week-Al-Gore.wmv

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you honestly believe that this kind of thing, if it is "normal", happens every XXX amount of years?

 

You talk about facts but then you talk about what ifs? What if its not a normal trend? What if we are on a path to disaster? What if nothing happens? What if the monkey penguin flies backward at midnight?

 

I can see you are stuck in your way of thinking and that is fine,maybe im stuck in mine. I just dont understand how if it is a fact that we are dumping a bunch of junk into the air, that it can be a good thing in any way shape or form. If it takes something like Global Warming to act as a catalyst for change, fine by me, regardless of its truthiness.

 

 

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/This-Week-Al-Gore.wmv

 

Tell me this. Why would you not believe that it is a normal thing for us to have warming every XXXX amount of years? Do you really think that we are so POWERFULL to change the whole climate of the planet? I don't, I think that natural changes happen with and without our help and that there is nothing we can do it change it. I think the Earth is a very powerful and can handle most of the stuff thrown at it, but that's not saying we need to test that theory and see if its true.

 

Yeah I'm stuck in my way of think just like you are.

 

As for talking about facts and then what ifs. Are you saying that the iceage from the past is not a fact? Because everything I see points to past iceages and then huge warming. I mean there used to be an ocean in Utah, what happened to it? How about global warming????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really think that we are so POWERFULL to change the whole climate of the planet? I don't, I think that natural changes happen with and without our help and that there is nothing we can do it change it.

 

I do know that if we were to pump methane at the same rate into the air, you would see the effects of global warming much, much sooner. I am honestly amazed that you disrespect the Earth enough to say that it can handle anything we throw at it. I am again trying not to be rude but that statement just seems uneducated. You dont think it would be possible to change the climate if we tried?

 

I am done arguing but I am honestly amazed by that last statement. I guess we shall see what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no disrespect for the Earth matter of fact its the opposite, I think the planet if very strong and powerful. And NO I do not believe we effect the climate that much, I think the planet would and will continue with or without us. I do think that you are confused though, I'm not saying we should just go ahead and thrash it because its strong. I do everything that I can to protect it and not add to problems.

 

I think this argument has gotten out of control and I'm tired of the insults. You believe the way you do and I will continue to believe the way I do. I'm not going to address your rude comment about uneducated because the only thing I can think of to say back is also rude.

 

You’ve bought into the whole thing hook line and sinker and there is no changing your mind or other realities, so I concede....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to get in the middle of this but...

 

I am also not convinced that we (humans) have had a significant effect on global warming.

 

Is global warming bad? If it wasn't for gloabal warming then we would still be in an ice age.

 

The earth is always changing from warm and cold periods. And like Rich said it has happend without us around. There are so many things that affect the earths temperature. The slightest change in the suns output would change our temperatures.

 

Theron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

drock59,

The article I started this thread with gave pretty compelling evidence to the contrary. I honestly don't have the time to dig around all over the place looking for more. I think I've said my piece and I'm really done arguing with you.

 

Rich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...