Skeptical of an Inconvenient Truth

[Feo Amante]

As did Mr. Randi, I too watched An Inconvenient Truth - but with a healthy amount of skepticism. The same skepticism I'd have while watching something like Secrets or while listening to the Kansas school board. Lots of folks here have keen interests in various sciences even if they aren't scientists themselves - all us Science Geeks. Mine is in the earth sciences in general with a particular eye toward Seismology. My geology teacher in college (a Mr. Clay - no lie!) got me started in this when he took us to Sunset crater in Arizona and I crawled through the ice caverns of the extinct volcano.

Since then I've been an avid caver/spelunker; member of the Speliological Society and when I saw An Inconvenient Truth, I kept thinking, 'But that's not how it works! But that's not how it works!' Until I realized that either Al was knowingly lying, purposefully avoiding anything that would interfere with his pet theory, or, to be most kind, simply exaggerating wildly.

By the end of An Inconvenient Truth, I understood why Al Gore was a college flunk-out. NOT a college drop-out, which denotes choice.

Since then, and despite the many voices of actual climatologists, geologists astronomers and others, I've been pummeled time and again by the realization that the whole Global Warming debate is nothing more thana fraudulent game of one-upmanship based entirely on political leanings. It affects me profoundly that Mr. Randi grandstanded several times in his piece in order to showboat Al Gore as a statesman (egad) and declare a demarcation between morons like Republicans and clear thinkers like liberals (whose number includes Maddona, Sylvia Browne, John Edwards, and Montel Williams).

I was especially disheartened to find that this news article, when you track it back, finally leads (of all places) to the tabloid Grist. GRIST? The JREF is now giving credence to GRIST?

If someone can find a more credible news organization reporting this (not just repeating Grist), I'd like to see it.

It was only a few weeks ago that Michael Shermer apologized to his readers for falling for the old Internet myth regarding the Grand Canyon and book policy at its store. It's a very old hoax that Shermer fell for, dating back to just after Bush was elected. And its getting sad when the skeptics I admire most are believing weird things just because they want to.

I'm open to opposing and encouraging ideas.

Feo Amante

[UnrepentantSinner]

You could go right to the source instead of using the media.
http://www.ipcc.ch/

[OMGturt1es]

don't tell us that gore's movie is flawed-- show us.

[Beady]

Give us specifics, not generalities.

[frank462]

Here are some specifics:

A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth (http://www.cei.org/gencon/030,05821.cfm)


.

[Overman]

Al Gore Flunked out of College??!?!?

[kedo1981]

We are looking at this all wrong.
The documentary has flaws for sure, like anything else.
The real problem with an “Inconvenient Truth” and the cultural out cry it’s generating, that it turns a very important issue into emotional hype.
We as human beings are filthy ”pigs” when it comes to taking care of the planet and we need to alter our behavior.
But when the issue is shoved at us with fear mongering tactics and is use by groups like Green Piece to extort money from the general public (carbon credits), then the work that will need to be done will come in a distant second and sooner or later will be forgotten all together; because people will get sick of it.

[Overman]

Also, I am pretty sure that EVERYTHING that Mr. Randi does he does with a healthy amount of skepticism.

[fsol]

Here are some specifics:

A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth (http://www.cei.org/gencon/030,05821.cfm)


.

The CEI? Well I'm convinced :rolleyes:

[colin]

Al Gore Flunked out of College??!?!?
Not according to Wiki:


"In 1965, he enrolled at Harvard College, the only school to which he applied. His roommate (in Dunster House) was actor Tommy Lee Jones. After finding himself bored with his classes in his declared English major, Gore switched majors and worked hard in his government courses and graduated cum laude from Harvard in June 1969 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government. After returning from the military he took religious studies courses at Vanderbilt University and then entered its Law School. He left Vanderbilt after completing the required one-year Rockefeller Foundation scholarship for students returning to secular work to run for Congress in 1976.[7]"

[Overman]

Does the OP realize that by telling one obvious lie like that shakes his whole credibility, and that it makes it even tougher to trust him on 'facts' he presents that can't be checked, or to give merit to his 'opinion'?

[Big Al]

The CEI? Well I'm convinced :rolleyes:

Well, at least they're attacking the message, not the messenger. They make a number of very detailed claims with references, rather than just dismissing Al Gore with :rolleyes:

[Krash]

Give us specifics, not generalities.

So I just for the first time watched AIT last night because it happened to be on before the new Bulls Hit. I didn't sit down with a pen and tablet and an open mind but a few things stand out. My background isn't in science. My background is in saying "Why should I believe that and what is motivating you to want me to feel that way?" whenever anyone is trying to tell me what to believe.

I am highly suspect of visual aids in general. The film is fraught with charts and graphs and after seeing the tenth one, I start to wonder about the data and math that went into them and how it was chosen.

And then Gore climbed on the scissor lift and showed the projected graph on CO2 levels...the graph shot up so much that the screen had to be hyperbolically extended.

All the tugging at my heartstrings...photo montages...I cried a gallon of tears for Gore's life and boyhood and love of nature and how he conceded to Bush in that election. "What on earth does all that extemporaneous human interest drivel have to do with global warming?" I rhetorically asked my wife for the third time before checking NCAA scores only to find Southern Illinois had lost to Kansas.

Towards the end, Gore says something to the effect of (I paraphrase, obviously) "We now have all the information we need to do something about [global warming]" What an utterly dense thing to say.

Am I totally missing the point of the film because I think Al Gore is a spineless little man without gonads? Probably. The film has an agenda. It's not gonna change very many minds; rather it "confirms" the ideas of the true believers and gives detractors something else to red herring. And it turns a buck.

Just seems to me that taking global warming information from Al Gore is like getting information on the GOP from Michael Moore.

[frozenfred]

I don't remember what day it was, but this week on "Morning Edition", they talked about Gore and his testimony in front of congress(?).

IIRC, the scientist NPR had on said that Gore's comments were often not 'scientific'. For example, Gore says that the arctic ice will be gone in 34 years. The commentator said that this was an awfully precise time-frame.

Also, Gore talks about the rising sea levels, and what Florida and New York will be like when the seas rise 24 (or whatever the number is) feet. What Gore doe NOT say is that current estimates are that it will take over a century for this to happen.

The NPR science commentator said that perhaps, because Washington D.C. is all about the "Now", and only reacts to crisis, Gore may be skewing things to make it seem more crisis-like.

[Crowbot]

While channel surfing I started watching "an inconvienent truth" last night, about 35 minutes beyond it's starting point is where I came in. I witnessed at least 5 graphs and charts that had no numerical data displayed but only numberless graphical representations which all looked very "impressive" but made my skeptical senses tingle. All of these graphs were presented and narrated personally by Al Gore holding a slideshow remote and standing on what I can only describe as some new age talk/game show stage.

After the charts were shown, it suddenly changed formats and became some personal story about Al Gore's childhood on some farm where he grew up. That's when I realized it was also some kind of self promotion video. "Does Al Gore still plan to run for some public office?" I thought, right before I changed the channel.

Had to change it back at 10pm to catch the new penn and teller!

[Chimera]

Found this Washington Post article about Al Gore's grades in college:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18

He did not "flunk out". Science and math seem to have been his weakest subjects, though:

For all of Gore's later fascination with science and technology, he often struggled academically in those subjects. The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year. The self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet avoided all courses in mathematics and logic throughout college, despite his outstanding score on the math portion of the SAT. As was the case with many of his classmates, his high school math grades had dropped from A's to C's as he advanced from trigonometry to calculus in his senior year.

[fsol]

Well, at least they're attacking the message, not the messenger. They make a number of very detailed claims with references, rather than just dismissing Al Gore with :rolleyes:

Questioning the CEI as a source is quite legitimate, especially when they open their mouths about climate change.

[fishbob]

Found this Washington Post article about Al Gore's grades in college:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18
. . . . The self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet . . .

Bull hockey.
Looks like the Washington Post is full of it. As is CEI, apparently.

I disliked the idea of an Al Gore presidency, and I did not vote for him. But, his message is no less valid because of that. I still probably would not vote for him, if the opportunity arose. But there is validity in the global warming message, even though the science is summarized and simplified and prettied-up for the US audience.

The really inconvenient truth is that most of us are morons.

[a_unique_person]

If anyone is bothered by the fact that a documentary by a politician is not convincing, or cannot present the required depth of evidence, please, go to the IPCC, http://www.ipcc.ch/, as US pointed out. There is only so much you can fit into a 1 1/2 hour film, so it can hardly represent the many papers and countless hours of scientific research into the topic.

[Overman]

Also, when people critize an Inconvient Truth about how it has details of Gore's personal life in there, remember that this is the director's decision and not the presentor.

When Gore gives the slideshow presentation, which he has given over a thousand times, it does not have the montaoge included...

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'd also note that even if you don't want to start perusing the entire Internet for comments from Climatology research organizations around the world, the U.S. as three governmental science entities that seem to agree that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a reality. The addresses should seem familiar to anyone "into science."
www.nasa.gov
www.noaa.gov
www.usgs.gov

You'll need to dig once you get to those sites, but I am willing to bet money that you won't find any articles, opinion pieces, polemics, etc. on any of them that deny the anthropogenic contribution to climate change.

[fls]

Had to change it back at 10pm to catch the new penn and teller!

Where they proceed to use the same techniques which An Inconvenient Truth was criticized for using.

Linda

[delphi_ote]

For all of Gore's later fascination with science and technology, he ... got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year... his high school math grades had dropped from A's to C's as he advanced from trigonometry to calculus in his senior year.
Maybe Al had senioritis almost as bad mine.

[a_unique_person]

However, I'll have a crack at it.



AIT: “The atmosphere is thin enough that we are capable of changing its composition.… In particular, we have vastly increased the amount of carbon dioxide—the most important of the so-called greenhouse gases.” (AIT, p. 25)



Most important in the sense that it is now. Al Gore is not a scientist, he's a layman, and I think we have to give him a little leeway. The response goes way beyond deserving a little leeway.


Comment: Water vapor, not carbon dioxide (CO2), is the most important greenhouse gas. Computing the exact contribution of each type of greenhouse gas to the overall greenhouse effect is complicated, because
the gases “overlap” in some of the spectra in which they absorb infrared radiation. Taking the overlaps into account, RealClimate.Org concludes that “water vapor is the single most important absorber (between 36% and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds makes up between 66% and 85%. CO2 alone makes up between 9 and 26%, while the O3 and the other minor GHG absorbers consist of up to 7 and 8% of the effect, respectively.”1



Water vapour is not driving change, it's responding to it. If you want to know why the world is warming, it's CO2. Water vapour is acting as a positive feedback, that is, the more CO2, the more water vapour, the warmer the air gets. The warmer the air gets, the more water vapour it can hold. So this is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.


Gore editorializes when he says that we have “vastly” increased the amount of CO2. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is so small that CO2 is referred to as a “trace gas.” Over the past century and a half, atmospheric CO2 levels have risen from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to about 380 ppm— from roughly 3/100ths to roughly 4/100ths of one percent of the atmosphere.



The amount of the concentration of something is not important, if it's effect is powerful. Eg, a little arsenic will kill you. So, once again, a complete misrepresentation. It's irrelevant how much it takes to do the job, if it does the job. A blatant appeal to emotion.

The actual direct effect of CO2 in warming is relatively small, but the feedback mechanisms of the atmosphere, such as water vapour, amplify that effect considerably.



Carbon dioxide is a climate “forcing” agent, but so is water vapor—the atmosphere’s main greenhouse gas.2 Anybody who called water vapor “pollution” would be laughed out of court, yet CO2 is equally innocent of having adverse effects on air quality. That is why a central goal of the Clean Air Act for more than 30 years has been to make cars so clean burning that, ultimately, nothing comes out of the tailpipe except water vapor and CO2.3 The phrase “global warming pollution” has no scientific meaning. It is designed to prejudice people against fossil energy use by conflating CO2 with substances that dirty the air and impair respiratory function.



Water vapour is not a forcing agent in this case. An appeal to ridicule and emotion is not an argument, once again. If the current climate were to remain static with no forcings, the water vapour would remain constant. Water vapour is short lived, and only exists as long as there is heat to create it. Take away the heat, the water vapour content of the atmosphere will drop.

CO2 in contrast is a long lived gas, with, IIRC, a half life in the atmosphere of about 100 years. Once you put it up there, it stays up there a long time. The difference with water is that this CO2 is being added to the atmosphere, by us. That is why it is called a forcing. Something new is being added to the system to change it.

CO2 is, then, a pollutant in the sense that we are adding more of it than the existing global climate system can absorb and stay stable. It is not a pollutant in the sense that CO2 is an essential part of life, and we have to breathe it out to live.



Comment: There is no question that “dramatic changes” are taking place in mountain glaciers. But it does not necessarily follow that dramatic changes are occurring in global climate. Small changes in temperature can produce rather large changes in mountain glaciers. So can changes in regional
precipitation that have nothing to do with CO2 emissions.



Then look at this global survey of glaciers. Al Gore could have been accused of cherry picking, but the global changes make it clear that's not the case, he has just listed the most iconic.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-18.htm

[LTC8K6]

The issue is by no means settled, imo.

I remain sceptical, as should everyone, imo.

AIT is just propaganda from one side of the issue, imo.

Randi and/or the JREF should not be endorsing it, imo.

[CFLarsen]

Just seems to me that taking global warming information from Al Gore is like getting information on the GOP from Michael Moore.

Who do you get your information from, then?

[CFLarsen]

The issue is by no means settled, imo.

What issue are you talking about?

That global warming is happening? Or that it is happening, but the issue is whether we are to blame or not?

[Big Al]

Questioning the CEI as a source is quite legitimate, especially when they open their mouths about climate change.

As I said, they're not just saying "Al Gore is a d*ck", they're making some very specific claims backed up with references, which is more than Mr Gore did in "AIT". Please attack the message, not the messenger. I happen to have read some of the papers they cite before.

There seems to be next to no debate about global warming. The main "proof" of AGW I keep seeing is, "There is a scientific consensus about this, and that's that. End of story." Very convincing. This is used to wipe away the "CO2-lags-delta-T" claim, the lack of tropospheric warming, the claim that Antarctic ice may be thinning at the edges, but it's thickening in the middle, etc., etc.

There used to be a "scientific consensus" to the effect that there was no such thing as tectonic drift. Scientists ignored Wegener's evidence as an amusing coincidence, but it just wouldn't go away.

You dismiss evidence with counter-evidence, not innuendo about the source. So where is the counter-evidence to what the CEI is claiming? If a study sponsored by Big Oil or Big Industry comes up with controversial claims, does that make them lie? That's exactly the attitude the "mercury/autism" crowd take when "Big Pharma" studies claim no link between thimoseral and autism.

I am not impressed. I know it's been getting warmer since my youth. However, "There is a scientific consensus about AGW" doesn't convince me that humans are behind it. I know it's been much warmer than this in the past, and also much cooler.

As a skeptic, I expect to be convinced by evidence, not rhetoric. If the CEI report is trash, then please refute it.

[LTC8K6]

What issue are you talking about?

The subject of the thread and the movie should be a clue...

[LTC8K6]

Why do some people expect the climate of the Earth to remain the same, anyway?

Maybe we should just tell everyone to watch the Great Global Warming Swindle and An Inconvenient Truth?

[a_unique_person]

On Kilimanjaro.



As you might expect, the paper Crichton cites on Kilimanjaro does not imply what he says it does, though by cherry-picking some quotes from the abstract, he makes it look like it supports his case. I went to the trouble of reading the paper and the related literature when I was helping UCS prepare their own Crichton FAQ. In this case, Crichton's abuse of the literature is even worse than usual.
The Kase paper footnoted by Crichton does not claim that deforestation is causing the melting of Kilimanjaro, and they have no data that would support that claim. In fact, the paper has rather little data of any sort, but they do cite a certain number of observations which raise the interesting question of whether temperature rise can account for the melting. They think that it's a change in humidity or cloudiness, but point out that even that could be part of the remote impact of a global climate change signal. Their claim that temperature isn't rising in the tropics is erroneous, especially in light of Fu et al's new satellite estimates of tropical warming since 1970.
By the way, Crichton didn't dig up this paper himself. The authors of the paper did an honest job of trying to raise some interesting questions about a complex subject, but as a reward, their paper got picked up by the Heartland Institute crowd, who trumpeted it under banners like "Global Warming Fears Melt Away." Andy Revkin did a good piece on the Kilimanjaro flap in the Times last fall. Andy quotes one of the authors of the Kase paper as saying,
"We have a mere 2.5 years of actual field measurements from Kilimanjaro
glaciers, unlike many other regions, so our understanding of their
relationship with climate and the volcano is just beginning to develop,"
Dr. Douglas R. Hardy, a geologist at the University of Massachusetts and
an author of the paper, wrote by e-mail. "Using these preliminary
findings to refute or even question global warming borders on the
absurd."




http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=129

Now that's cherry picking.

[LTC8K6]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmViY2Y3YzY1YmVkYTg4NjczODhkYWU1Mjg1YzhjMTI=

[CFLarsen]

The subject of the thread and the movie should be a clue...
That global warming is happening? Or that it is happening, but the issue is whether we are to blame or not?

[LTC8K6]

CFLarsen, you aren't going to get a new answer from me.

[a_unique_person]

Why do some people expect the climate of the Earth to remain the same, anyway?

Maybe we should just tell everyone to watch the Great Global Warming Swindle and An Inconvenient Truth?

Who said they do? What does happen is that species adapt to a climate. When the climate changes rapidly (in biological life terms, this is a rapid change) mass extinctions occur because they don't have time to adapt.

If this change is caused by us, and it's rapid, then we ought to consider the issue.

[LTC8K6]

Hasn't this happened before when man could not have been the cause?

[LTC8K6]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjI4NTc0YWMzNTA3ZjRmYmJiMDRjNmI5MGEwZTFhM2E=

[a_unique_person]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmViY2Y3YzY1YmVkYTg4NjczODhkYWU1Mjg1YzhjMTI=

This guy at least talks the talk. Unlike the CEI bunch of rubbish, Manzi goes to the heart of the arguments for or against, and seems to actually respect the scientist working on the issue, even if he does think they are wrong.

[CFLarsen]

CFLarsen, you aren't going to get a new answer from me.

That was, in its own way, clarifying.

[Beady]

Well, at least they're attacking the message, not the messenger. They make a number of very detailed claims with references, rather than just dismissing Al Gore with :rolleyes:

"They"? The linked page displays what appears to be a one-man show.

[Beady]

Also, I am pretty sure that EVERYTHING that Mr. Randi does he does with a healthy amount of skepticism.

To be honest, no, he doesn't. It was just a few weeks ago when he (and every other skeptical guru and most followers) swallowed hook-line-and-sinker that press release that claimed the Administration was forcing Grand Canyon park rangers to toe the creationist line. AFAIK, Shermer is the only one who (after initially buying into it) actually tried to verify sources.

Bottom line, Randi is just as human as most of us.

[frank462]

It seems to me that the question is "are we having a global warming crisis"? My point being that this issue is not as cut and dried as the proponents would have you believe. So allow me to submit some more information from the other side. And please, no more "ad hominem" stuff.

17,000 Scientist Reject Kyoto Treaty (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm)

Let Them Confess Their Faith (http://www.techcentralstation.com/020604C.html)

Climate Catastrophe Cancelled (http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3)

Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability (http://gamma.physchem.kth.se/~climate/)

Climate of Fear (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220)

Changes Point To Natural Climate Variability (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/11/021113070418.htm)


.

[Crowbot]

Where they proceed to use the same techniques which An Inconvenient Truth was criticized for using.

Linda

I agree (for that night's episode, anyway). But that's for a different thread :)

[delphi_ote]

Why do some people expect the climate of the Earth to remain the same, anyway?
You sure know how to make one hell of a strawman.

[LTC8K6]

That was, in its own way, clarifying.

You now realize that the topic of the thread and the movie is AGW?

You're welcome.

[CFLarsen]

To be honest, no, he doesn't. It was just a few weeks ago when he (and every other skeptical guru and most followers) swallowed hook-line-and-sinker that press release that claimed the Administration was forcing Grand Canyon park rangers to toe the creationist line. AFAIK, Shermer is the only one who (after initially buying into it) actually tried to verify sources.

Bottom line, Randi is just as human as most of us.

That doesn't show that Randi isn't skeptical. It shows that Randi can be fooled. Which, naturally, skeptics can. Nobody claims that skeptics can't be fooled.

Who are the skeptical "gurus" you are talking about?

[delphi_ote]

17,000 Scientist Reject Kyoto Treaty (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm)
CA111 (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html).

Deja Vu.

[Krash]

Who do you get your information from, then?

This discussion seems to miss the forest for the trees.

It is undeniable that humanity's pollution has great effect on the environment. And I'm in favor of finding alternative energy for a vast number of reasons.

But I take strong issue with alarmist propaganda coming from a politician and everyone seeming to jump on a bandwagon.

[LTC8K6]

You sure know how to make one hell of a strawman.

Gee, thanks...

What is/was Earth's climate doing when man isn't/wasn't influencing it?

[CFLarsen]

This discussion seems to miss the forest for the trees.

It is undeniable that humanity's pollution has great effect on the environment. And I'm in favor of finding alternative energy for a vast number of reasons.

But I take strong issue with alarmist propaganda coming from a politician and everyone seeming to jump on a bandwagon.

On the contrary.

If you dismiss information about global warming because it comes from Al Gore, where do you get your information from?

[Beady]

Nobody claims that skeptics can't be fooled.

Sigh. And that is different from my "bottom line," how?

The post to which I was replying did make that claim, as illustrated by the quote I specifically cited and which you have here neglected to include.

Tell you what: Argue with my post from within the context it was written, and then I will respond further.

[Big Al]

"They"? The linked page displays what appears to be a one-man show.

Unlike the CEI bunch of rubbish, Manzi goes to the heart of the arguments

OK. So it's a one-man show (with academic references). It's a bunch of rubbish.

Sorry, guys, the wealth of debunking evidence you're showering on the thread is not exactly lightening my darkness here. Why don't you address the "rubbish's" claims? You'd be quick enough if a wooster was rubbishing Darwinian natural selection with specious arguments.

I'm so, so glad that it's all so obvious and undeniable to you, but why don't you enlighten me? I'm not your enemy here.

[Big Al]

On the contrary.

If you dismiss information about global warming because it comes from Al Gore, where do you get your information from?

If you dismiss a report claiming to refute AGW because it comes from the CEI, where do you get your information?

[LTC8K6]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=0ea8dc23-ad1a-440f-a8dd-1e3ff42df34f&k=26750

[CFLarsen]

Sigh. And that is different from my "bottom line," how?

The post to which I was replying did make that claim, as illustrated by the quote I specifically cited and which you have here neglected to include.

Tell you what: Argue with my post from within the context it was written, and then I will respond further.

Tell you what: I haven't "neglected" to include it. That's not the way the QUOTE function works: It only quotes your words, not what you quoted. There is nothing that prevents people from going back and read what you responded to.

If you don't think that skeptics can't be fooled, why do you complain that Randi was?

Who are the skeptical "gurus" you are talking about?

[Krash]

On the contrary.

If you dismiss information about global warming because it comes from Al Gore, where do you get your information from?

I don't recall dismissing anything because it came from Al Gore or anyone else. All you're doing is baiting people, Claus and I'm disgusted with myself for even dignifying your existence with a response in the first place.

This discussion is about AIT and I feel that, like the all too popular Bulls Hit! appeals to P&T fans, the film targets those who already support Gore-the-Bore's position. It wouldn't do a very good job convincing someone whose mind is not made up yet and it certainly doesn't present facts with any sense of objectivity.

While its message may be factual and, perhaps sincere, AIT is sensationalized, alarmist, thinly-veiled political propaganda.

[Steven Howard]

Since then I've been an avid caver/spelunker; member of the Speliological Society and when I saw An Inconvenient Truth, I kept thinking, 'But that's not how it works! But that's not how it works!'

What specific spelunking details were wrong in the movie? I mean, you wouldn't mention your credentials as a spelunker in that sentence unless they were somehow relevant, right?

It affects me profoundly that Mr. Randi grandstanded several times in his piece in order to showboat Al Gore as a statesman (egad) and declare a demarcation between morons like Republicans and clear thinkers like liberals (whose number includes Maddona, Sylvia Browne, John Edwards, and Montel Williams).

"Grandstanded several times"? What? As for the rest of this, I can't tell if it's a non sequitur or an argument ad hominem, but I fail to see how the (real or imagined) political views of the people you list have anything to do with anything Randi's written.


I was especially disheartened to find that this news article, when you track it back, finally leads (of all places) to the tabloid Grist. GRIST? The JREF is now giving credence to GRIST?

If someone can find a more credible news organization reporting this (not just repeating Grist), I'd like to see it.

You mean the story about why Wayne Gilchrest wasn't appointed to the Global Warming Committee? Yes, the Washington Monthly blog linked to Gristmill, but it also linked to the actual newspaper story (http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070320/NEWS01/703200302/1002) which was written by Nicole Gaudiano for the Gannett News Service (http://www.gannett.com/), a completely reputable mainstream newspaper group.

[Overman]

Sigh. And that is different from my "bottom line," how?

The post to which I was replying did make that claim, as illustrated by the quote I specifically cited and which you have here neglected to include.

Tell you what: Argue with my post from within the context it was written, and then I will respond further.

I never said 'skeptics can't be fooled' I said I am pretty sure that everything Randi does he does with a healthy does of skepticism....You are allowing yourself quite a bit of slack there...

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Al Gores movie is based upon the asupmtion of the IPCC wich is based (to determine consensus) in Oreskes study, wich is flawed.
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

[fsol]

As I said, they're not just saying "Al Gore is a d*ck", they're making some very specific claims backed up with references, which is more than Mr Gore did in "AIT". Please attack the message, not the messenger. I happen to have read some of the papers they cite before.

There seems to be next to no debate about global warming. The main "proof" of AGW I keep seeing is, "There is a scientific consensus about this, and that's that. End of story." Very convincing. This is used to wipe away the "CO2-lags-delta-T" claim, the lack of tropospheric warming, the claim that Antarctic ice may be thinning at the edges, but it's thickening in the middle, etc., etc.

There used to be a "scientific consensus" to the effect that there was no such thing as tectonic drift. Scientists ignored Wegener's evidence as an amusing coincidence, but it just wouldn't go away.

You dismiss evidence with counter-evidence, not innuendo about the source. So where is the counter-evidence to what the CEI is claiming? If a study sponsored by Big Oil or Big Industry comes up with controversial claims, does that make them lie? That's exactly the attitude the "mercury/autism" crowd take when "Big Pharma" studies claim no link between thimoseral and autism.

I am not impressed. I know it's been getting warmer since my youth. However, "There is a scientific consensus about AGW" doesn't convince me that humans are behind it. I know it's been much warmer than this in the past, and also much cooler.

As a skeptic, I expect to be convinced by evidence, not rhetoric. If the CEI report is trash, then please refute it.


Off the top of my head...

The troposphere *is* warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

No one denies that CO2 lags temperature in the instances that you are talking about. The data is there for all to see. What might be argued about is the conclusion that the CO2 lag means that the present warming is not caused by increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is hardly a logically sound position to take.

If you want to see the evidence that has convinced people that AGW is real go to http://www.ipcc.ch .Maybe have a look at the latest summary for policymakers http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

[Feo Amante]

Thanks Unrepentent, but their report is still pending. What I'm referring to specifically with this post though, is this particular statement by Gilcrest. He may have made it, but the wording of the article is vague enough to be suspect. The link provided by Mr. Randi links to a blog, the blog references Grist of all places, and that in turn points to a Washington Monthly article that doesn't even quote its source. It refers to an interview and quotes that interview but doesn't credit that interview. Who did this interview? where is it posted? I can't find it anywhere in my online searches.

Doesn't that seem pretty questionable?

[Feo Amante]

I was likely sharper to Mr. Randi than I should have been. If that is the case, I apologize for that. Mr. Randi is the reason (well, him and Isaac Asimov) that I am the atheist and skeptic that I am today. My life is healthier and richer because of these two people.

That said, he's as human as the rest of us and I'm skeptical of believing in him 100%.

THAT said, I sometimes doubt myself.

I don't want to offend anyone with my generalities, but I don't want to take up too much space going over Al Gore's movie point by point. If there is a specific example from the movie that you take issue with - in regards to me and my doubt, not the movie itself - please mention it and I'll post a rebuttal or agreement. I'll also post links or credit to my source. Sources that WON'T be mere mouthpieces for any wing.

[Feo Amante]

Found this Washington Post article about Al Gore's grades in college:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18

He did not "flunk out". Science and math seem to have been his weakest subjects, though:

For all of Gore's later fascination with science and technology, he often struggled academically in those subjects. The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year. The self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet avoided all courses in mathematics and logic throughout college, despite his outstanding score on the math portion of the SAT. As was the case with many of his classmates, his high school math grades had dropped from A's to C's as he advanced from trigonometry to calculus in his senior year.
Hey Chimera. Near the bottom of that article you linked to, it tells of Gore getting flunking grades in all of his classes at Vanderbilt.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Duplicate ---Deleted

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Maibe the little pathfinder was the human cause of global warming....in mars
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

[Steven Howard]

The link provided by Mr. Randi links to a blog, the blog references Grist of all places, and that in turn points to a Washington Monthly article that doesn't even quote its source. It refers to an interview and quotes that interview but doesn't credit that interview. Who did this interview? where is it posted? I can't find it anywhere in my online searches.


No searching is necessary. You just need to follow the links that are already provided. Randi links to a blog post at the Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_03/010968.php), which in its very first line links to both the Gristmill (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/20/103855/486) blog and the newspaper story (http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070320/NEWS01/703200302/1002) in question, which ran in a local paper (http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage)in Gilchrest's district (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland's_1st_congressional_district).

And if you somehow missed the link at the Washington Monthly, the post at Gristmill also contains a link to the same story, also in its very first line.

[CFLarsen]

If you dismiss a report claiming to refute AGW because it comes from the CEI, where do you get your information?

I have said nothing about dismissing the CEI report.

I don't recall dismissing anything because it came from Al Gore or anyone else. All you're doing is baiting people, Claus and I'm disgusted with myself for even dignifying your existence with a response in the first place.

This discussion is about AIT and I feel that, like the all too popular Bulls Hit! appeals to P&T fans, the film targets those who already support Gore-the-Bore's position. It wouldn't do a very good job convincing someone whose mind is not made up yet and it certainly doesn't present facts with any sense of objectivity.

While its message may be factual and, perhaps sincere, AIT is sensationalized, alarmist, thinly-veiled political propaganda.

Why are you so defensive? All I asked is where you get your information from, if not Gore.

Saying "Just seems to me that taking global warming information from Al Gore is like getting information on the GOP from Michael Moore." is not dismissing it? Sure sounded like it.

But, OK: You don't dismiss Gore's information. What's the hubbub?

[Feo Amante]

No searching is necessary. You just need to follow the links that are already provided. Randi links to a blog post at the Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_03/010968.php), which in its very first line links to both the Gristmill (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/20/103855/486) blog and the newspaper story (http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070320/NEWS01/703200302/1002) in question, which ran in a local paper (http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage)in Gilchrest's district (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland's_1st_congressional_district).

And if you somehow missed the link at the Washington Monthly, the post at Gristmill also contains a link to the same story, also in its very first line.
Hey Steven,

Check out the story again. It doesn't reference the interview. It's just the same story over and again but nobody says Who did this interview, Where it came from, or When it happened. No credit or source at all. Doesn't this make you, well, skeptical?

[Steven Howard]

Hey Chimera. Near the bottom of that article you linked to, it tells of Gore getting flunking grades in all of his classes at Vanderbilt.

Not exactly:

He took the religious studies courses while also working full time as a journalist at the Nashville Tennessean, and after getting off to a strong start with an A-minus in Ethics, he failed to complete any of the three courses he took in the fall of 1971, and those incompletes eventually lapsed into F's. He returned for another semester in the spring of 1972, when two more incompletes turned into F's. Two years later, he enrolled in law school and spent three semesters there taking heavy course loads while still working at the newspaper. He performed satisfactorily, with a high grade of 81 in Legal Writing and a low grade of 69 in Civil Procedures II. Partway through the spring semester in 1976, he decided to run for an open seat in Tennessee's 3rd Congressional District.

Emphasis mine.

At any rate, this is still argument ad hominem. Gore's wrong about global warming because he did poorly in divinity school 35 years ago?

[Keneke]

I am unsure how far along ya'll are in Global Warming, but just recently I did some internet investigation (as compared to actual scientific studies) and drew my own conclusions. I have posted them all in my livejournal. In the link below, all the GW posts are listed. It might be beneficial to read them in chronological order past to present, as I discuss the issue as I see it based upon what I find at the time. By all means, please comment on it.

http://brodycatsmouth.livejournal.com/tag/global+warming

[Steven Howard]

Hey Steven,

Check out the story again. It doesn't reference the interview. It's just the same story over and again but nobody says Who did this interview, Where it came from, or When it happened. No credit or source at all. Doesn't this make you, well, skeptical?

Now that you mention it, no. It doesn't. It's a newspaper, not a doctoral thesis. That's how interviews are quoted in newspapers. Read any story, in any local paper. "So-and-so said, in an interview" is how a reporter cites an interview that she conducted herself.

[Keneke]

PS I haven't looked to see if this has been posted, but if no one has posted it yet, the online video of the BBC program "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is always good to toss in a AIT debate.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=Great+Global+Warming+Swindle

[Steven Howard]

Anybody who thinks Gilchrest didn't really say what the Salisbury Daily Times quoted him as saying could, I suppose, email him (http://gilchrest.house.gov/contact.asp?ContactType=Form)and ask him. I'm sure he'd want to know if he were being misquoted all over the place.

[Moochie]

We are looking at this all wrong.
The documentary has flaws for sure, like anything else.
The real problem with an “Inconvenient Truth” and the cultural out cry it’s generating, that it turns a very important issue into emotional hype.
We as human beings are filthy ”pigs” when it comes to taking care of the planet and we need to alter our behavior.
But when the issue is shoved at us with fear mongering tactics and is use by groups like Green Piece to extort money from the general public (carbon credits), then the work that will need to be done will come in a distant second and sooner or later will be forgotten all together; because people will get sick of it.

That's just so much bullcrap, mate. Anyone with an ounce of gray matter can weigh the evidence and come to their own conclusion. That conclusion may not be what you or I might desire, but that's neither here nor there.

The issue is important enough that a hue and cry such as generated by this documentary is needed, not to convince anyone, but to make them aware of the issue in the first place, so that they may become motivated to examine what evidence there is.

There seems to be a scientific momentum around global warming to make it an issue that shouldn't be ignored.

Having the U.S. government alter documents to hide this is hideously scary, in my opinion.

I'm 57, so won't be around to see the outcome of what I call "the human experiment" -- an experiment to see how quickly a species can, cancer-like, destroy the life-giving and life-sustaining qualities of an entire planet.

I could say a lot of people will end up with egg on their faces, except there probably won't be any eggs, and there won't be any faces.

Alarmist? Want to bet?

M.

[Feo Amante]

Now that you mention it, no. It doesn't. It's a newspaper, not a doctoral thesis. That's how interviews are quoted in newspapers. Read any story, in any local paper. "So-and-so said, in an interview" is how a reporter cites an interview that she conducted herself.
A doctoral thesis? Spare the drama here. Quoting your source in a news article doesn't amount to a doctoral thesis. I read news from many sources everyday and I've always seen credible news entities quote their public sources. Gilcrest didn't give this interview in secret, the article says they are lifting a quote from an interview - but they don't say WHOSE interview.

To lift quotes from someone else's interview without crediting the source?

It skirts plagiarism. Why defend it?

[Moochie]

Bull hockey.
Looks like the Washington Post is full of it. As is CEI, apparently.

I disliked the idea of an Al Gore presidency, and I did not vote for him. But, his message is no less valid because of that. I still probably would not vote for him, if the opportunity arose. But there is validity in the global warming message, even though the science is summarized and simplified and prettied-up for the US audience.

The really inconvenient truth is that most of us are morons.


My sentiment exactly. Now why couldn't I be as pithy?

M.

[Beady]

If you don't think that skeptics can't be fooled, why do you complain that Randi was?

Read it again. I was correcting someone's assertion that Rand is always properly skeptical, and I used a factual illustration.

I can't figure out where you're coming from. Are you agreeing with the person to whom I was replying? Are you claiming that the example is not pertinent or accurate? How is it not pertinent or accurate? What is wrong with my statement that Randi is a fallible human, and how does that statement equate to a complaint about his fallibility? Is it your assertion that Randi is above criticism or skepticism? Just exactly what is your beef? Or do you just have a chip on your shoulder?

[delphi_ote]

What is/was Earth's climate doing when man isn't/wasn't influencing it?
Nice duck, but that wasn't my line of argument. You said:
Why do some people expect the climate of the Earth to remain the same, anyway?
Yet nobody is insisting that the climate stay the same. They are concerned with the rate and nature of climate change.

Your comment was a textbook example of a strawman argument. If you don't have the sophistication to debate your real opponent, we're all better off if you don't enter the conversation. You make yourself look bad, you poorly represent your side of the argument, and everyone reading what you've posted has wasted their time. In the future, please think before you post.

[Steven Howard]

Gilcrest didn't give this interview in secret, the article says they are lifting a quote from an interview - but they don't say WHOSE interview.

To lift quotes from someone else's interview without crediting the source?

It skirts plagiarism. Why defend it?

I said, and you quoted:

"So-and-so said, in an interview" is how a reporter cites an interview that she conducted herself.

Let's see how simple I can make this.

Jill is a reporter. She interviews Jack for a story. During the interview, Jack says, "I like pie."

In her story, Jill might write the following sentence: "I like pie," Jack said in an interview.

[a_unique_person]

Gee, thanks...

What is/was Earth's climate doing when man isn't/wasn't influencing it?

A rhetorical question, I'm guessing you already know your answer.

The earth's climate has had states of being fairly stable, others of instability, some where it changes rapidly, others when it changes slowly.

Our current climate has been remarkeably stable. In that time, civilisation has flourished. It is now going through a phase of relatively rapid change.

Every time it changes, there is a reason for that change. At this particular point in time, that reason just happens to be mostly us.

[a_unique_person]

OK. So it's a one-man show (with academic references). It's a bunch of rubbish.

Sorry, guys, the wealth of debunking evidence you're showering on the thread is not exactly lightening my darkness here. Why don't you address the "rubbish's" claims? You'd be quick enough if a wooster was rubbishing Darwinian natural selection with specious arguments.

I'm so, so glad that it's all so obvious and undeniable to you, but why don't you enlighten me? I'm not your enemy here.

I have given reasonse why the CEI argument was wrong. Manzi does not make stupid argumenst such as 'CO2 is only present in small concentrations'. He accepts the basic science, and doesn't fall for the 'it's the sun' argument, which is not supported by facts.

[varwoche]

As did Mr. Randi, I too watched An Inconvenient Truth - but with a healthy amount of skepticism. The same skepticism I'd have while watching something like Secrets or while listening to the Kansas school board. As a number of others have requested, can you be specific? Vague criticism like this is of no value.

Since then, and despite the many voices of actual climatologists, geologists astronomers and others, I've been pummeled time and again by the realization... that the whole Global Warming debate is nothing more thana fraudulent game ... clear thinkers like liberals (whose number includes Maddona, Sylvia Browne, John Edwards, and Montel Williams). Instead of whinging about celebrities, why not stick with the experts (http://gwstudies.blogspot.com/)?

Here are some specifics:
A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth (http://www.cei.org/gencon/030,05821.cfm) An executive overview of an 18 chapter document is incredibly not specific. You're going to have to quote and link to some specific bits before anyone (with common sense) is going to run off and read an 18 chapter document written by agenda driven politicos. Better yet, how about citing some actual experts. (What a concept!)

Well, at least they're attacking the message, not the messenger. They make a number of very detailed claims with references, rather than just dismissing Al Gore with :rolleyes: Ditto what I wrote to frank462. How about quoting/linking to the bits you find most convincing?

The main "proof" of AGW I keep seeing is, "There is a scientific consensus about this, and that's that. End of story. Then I suggest you look to the science (http://gwstudies.blogspot.com/).

So where is the counter-evidence to what the CEI is claiming? If a study sponsored by Big Oil or Big Industry comes up with controversial claims, does that make them lie? You could start by pointing to the evidence, rather than an executive overview of an 18 chapter document.

But even then, it's reasonable not to consider it because CEI is not an authority on the topic. Maybe, however, they cite experts, in which case you should cite those experts directly instead of playing argumentum ad Kevin Baconum.

To drive the point home, if I point you to an eighteen chapter document located at...
NonScientistBagOfAgendaDrivenHotAirTalksScience.co m
... and don't even bother to point to the relevant bits, would you feel obligated to read it and address it point by point? I suspect not.

[Drysdale]

I seem to remember back in the 70's(yea,I'm getting up there:( ) some nonsense about an impending ice age.

Personally, I place this in with the 70's ice age, nuclear scares,Y2K scares and multitudes of other stuff I've seen. I'm not a scientist and would'nt know what I was looking at if there were numbers on those graphs,I'm not a brainiac like some of you. But I do have a keen eye for what looks like BS, and thats what this looks like to me. Just my 2 cents.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Maibe the little pathfinder was the human cause of global warming....in mars
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

I've seen this being raised by deniers previously, but I wonder if they can cite data about massive increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, which are the real concern with climate change, not just temperatures.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I seem to remember back in the 70's(yea,I'm getting up there:( ) some nonsense about an impending ice age.

You might want to do a little checking to see how your memory coincides with the facts.

The Impending Ice Age is the Nebraska Man of the 1970s.

[msmith40]

1) Climate change has been present always. Long before man arrived. Therefore, man is not responsible for it.

2) House Republican Leader John Boehner allegedly asked Rep. Wayne Gilchrest to state ‘humans are not causing climate change’. Well, that’s true. Humans contribute to climate change, but they are not causing it. Good for John.

3) "Roy Blunt said he didn't think there was enough evidence to suggest that humans are causing global warming," Roy’s a smart man. Earth has always experienced periods of warming/cooling. And, (once again) such extreme temperature changes were occurring long before man arrived, and long before the combustion engine was invented.

4) The other planets in our solar system are also experiencing climate changes. To my knowledge, man has not established colonies on any of them. (Not yet, anyway.)

5) Data does show a link between the rise in temperature and the rise of CO2 levels. However, the temperature rises first, followed by increasing CO2 levels. (If your theory is based upon rising CO2 levels triggering a rise in Earth’s temperature, your theory is h-o-s-e-d.)

6) Heightened solar activity precedes a rise in Earth’s temperature. Heightened CO2 levels follow.

7) Higher temps mean ‘imminent doom’ for planet Earth. But data shows much higher Earth temperatures in past centuries. Yet here we are.

8) “…the best thing they (Republicans) could do for Republican credibility was to appoint members familiar with the scientific data.” Actually, the best thing ANY party could do (regarding the Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming) would be appoint members with a reputable, non-biased background in science. Just being ‘familiar with the scientific data‘ won’t do.

9) Al Gore is “…a statesman if ever there was one…” WOW! That was very disappointing to hear from Randi. With ALL due respect to Randi, this ‘statesman’ was VP for 8 years, yet didn’t say boo regarding global warming during that time. This is the same ‘statesman’ who wanted to censor music lyrics and slap a warning sticker on LP’s and cassettes. This is the same ‘statesman’ who grew up on a tobacco farm, worked on it, and accepted checks from that farm for years after his sister died from lung cancer. Read more about this ‘statesman’ here:

(Change each 'dot' to a '.')
realchangedotorg/gore.htm#tobacco


10) To Randi (or anyone): I’d like to recommend watching ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ on youtube. (The same place I saw ‘statesman’ Gore’s slideshow.)

‘Statesman’ Al Gore’s entire premise is ‘Man is responsible for global warming!’, yet he has shown no proof to back his claim. We want John Edwards, Sylvia Browne, James Van Praagh, et al. to take the Randi Challenge and prove that they’re not using cold reading to swindle people. Yet ‘statesman’ Gore (whipping us into a frenzy via scare tactics and leading the charge for his own political power) is given the seal of approval – by Randi - merely by way of his doom & gloom slideshow. The same man who proudly wears the label of ‘skeptic’ watches Al Gore’s slideshow and comes away with “Well, that’s that! I’m convinced!” That is extremely disappointing.

(For those who like Al Gore and feel I may be picking on him, let’s do this. Let’s take Al Gore out of the equation. Let’s make him just some guy. Just some average, ordinary shmo. We’ll call him Fred. Feel free to replace Al Gore with ‘Fred’ when reading my comments. It may make you feel better, but it won’t really change anything.)

11) Randi sez: “Familiarity with the scientific data? Sorry, no. We're the GOP.” Nice broad brush you have. Their political party (having been defined) made that cheap shot too easy, I guess.

So let’s recap:
1) The Earth has been warming/cooling forever.
2) Climate change? A natural occurrence. Not man-made.
3) The Earth has experienced much higher temperatures in the past, and man has survived.
4) Solar activity precedes higher Earth temperatures. Higher Earth temperatures precede increased CO2 levels.
5) One volcano can spew more CO2 than the entire human population can generate in 100 years. And if we could create a way to reduce the levels of CO2 emitted by volcanoes, should we? Species have come/gone for all these years without our interference (and with God-knows how many erupting volcanoes), so should we tinker with the recipe?

‘Global-warming-caused-by-man’ advocates = the church.
‘Dissenters’ = Galileo.
Al Gore = King of global-warming ‘woo-woo'

(Change each 'dot' to a '.')

junksciencedotcom
lewrockwelldotcom/orig5/lowi5.html
sciencedotnasadotgov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
sciencedotnasadotgov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm
telegraphdotcodotuk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml

All the best,
msmith40

[quixotecoyote]

1) Climate change has been present always. Long before man arrived. Therefore, man is not responsible for it.


This is a non-sequitor. Repleace climate change with anything else to see why:

X existed before Y
Now X exists with Y.
Therefore Y has no effect on X.

or better yet

Forest destruction existed before humans.
Forest destruction now exists at the same time as humans.
Therefore forest destruction has nothing to do with humans.


2) House Republican Leader John Boehner allegedly asked Rep. Wayne Gilchrest to state ‘humans are not causing climate change’. Well, that’s true. Humans contribute to climate change, but they are not causing it. Good for John.


Fallacy of equivocation. Climate change happens, no one is denying this, so to conflate human-caused climate change with natural climate change is dishonest. As was the attempt to tell Gilchrest what to decide before he considered the evidence.


3) "Roy Blunt said he didn't think there was enough evidence to suggest that humans are causing global warming," Roy’s a smart man. Earth has always experienced periods of warming/cooling. And, (once again) such extreme temperature changes were occurring long before man arrived, and long before the combustion engine was invented.

Read my last two comments again in succession to see what is wrong with this statement.

4) The other planets in our solar system are also experiencing climate changes. To my knowledge, man has not established colonies on any of them. (Not yet, anyway.)


Again, you're stuck on this idea that because climate changes happen naturally, humans must not be affecting them.


5) Data does show a link between the rise in temperature and the rise of CO2 levels. However, the temperature rises first, followed by increasing CO2 levels. (If your theory is based upon rising CO2 levels triggering a rise in Earth’s temperature, your theory is h-o-s-e-d.)

I refer you to
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/wg1TARtechsum.pdf

A synopsis can be found here:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Pay special attention to:
Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).

and

Is the climate warming?

Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform.

....
Indirect indicators of warming such as borehole temperatures, snow cover, and glacier recession data, are in substantial agreement with the more direct indicators of recent warmth.


6) Heightened solar activity precedes a rise in Earth’s temperature. Heightened CO2 levels follow.

Increased CO2 does cause global warming and thus the irrefutable human based increases must have that effect by your own logic. (assuming you aren't posting talking points)


7) Higher temps mean ‘imminent doom’ for planet Earth. But data shows much higher Earth temperatures in past centuries. Yet here we are.

Not doom for either the planet of the human race, but the disruption of the systems of civilzation we have built based on current climate systems.


8) “…the best thing they (Republicans) could do for Republican credibility was to appoint members familiar with the scientific data.” Actually, the best thing ANY party could do (regarding the Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming) would be appoint members with a reputable, non-biased background in science. Just being ‘familiar with the scientific data‘ won’t do.

Agreed, but we don't want to get our hopes up quite yet.

9) Al Gore is “…a statesman if ever there was one…” WOW! That was very disappointing to hear from Randi. With ALL due respect to Randi, this ‘statesman’ was VP for 8 years, yet didn’t say boo regarding global warming during that time. This is the same ‘statesman’ who wanted to censor music lyrics and slap a warning sticker on LP’s and cassettes. This is the same ‘statesman’ who grew up on a tobacco farm, worked on it, and accepted checks from that farm for years after his sister died from lung cancer. Read more about this ‘statesman’ here:

Ignoring the poisoned well, Gore has been pushing for climate change, but what he would like to get done and what is politically accomplishable are two different things. Global warming denial is much more economically/politically profitable. He did manage a few things.

He negotiated the Kyoto agreement even if the republicans wouldn't ratify it. I still give him credit as it meant many other nations are bound by it now.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/15/time/lemonick.html

He kept data acquistion on climate change going.
http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9908/03/satellite.arctic.enn/

But it's not really my goal to defend Gore so much as the argument he's making, so I'll stop there.

10) To Randi (or anyone): I’d like to recommend watching ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ on youtube. (The same place I saw ‘statesman’ Gore’s slideshow.)

That's just a rehash of arguments based on out of date, manipulated, or misinterpreted data. If you have any particular points I'd be happy to address them.



‘Global-warming-caused-by-man’ advocates = the church.
‘Dissenters’ = Galileo.
Al Gore = King of global-warming ‘woo-woo'


The Crackpot Index
John Baez

35. # 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

[a_unique_person]

Whatever the rights or wrongs of the issue, as Randi points out, choosing the members of a committee on at topic as important as this one, based, not on their ability to find the truth, but to agree beforehand to a predetermined decision, is disgraceful. It doesn't matter which party did it.

[msmith40]

"X existed before Y
Now X exists with Y.
Therefore Y has no effect on X."

I did not say anywhere in my post that Y had no effect on X.

I said that man is not responsible for global warming.

This is more in line with what I've said:
X existed before Y
Now X exists with Y.
Therefore Y is not responsible for X.

"Again, you're stuck on this idea that because climate changes happen naturally, humans must not be affecting them."

No, no, no.
The whole premise of Gore's film is "Man is responsible for global warming."
This is not true, and Al Gore has not proven that.

Is mankind contributing to global warming?
Probably.

Is it a major contributor of global warming?
No.
One eruption from Mt. Pinatubo delivered more CO2 than ALL of mankind did in the past 100 years. That's just one volcano, and that's not the only one that eruprted in the past 100 years.


"Fallacy of equivocation. Climate change happens, no one is denying this, so to conflate human-caused climate change with natural climate change is dishonest. As was the attempt to tell Gilchrest what to decide before he considered the evidence."

Can Gilchrest prove that man causes global warming?
No.
So Boehner did not ask Gilchrest to lie.
Gilchrest believes man is responsible for global warming, so perhaps Boehner should've asked Gilchrest for proof.

re: 'Global Swindle'

That's just a rehash of arguments based on out of date, manipulated, or misinterpreted data.
To dismiss 'Global Swindle' so off-handedly was expected. Please feel free to address any or all of the out of date, manipulated, or misinterpreted data.

"Not doom for either the planet of the human race, but the disruption of the systems of civilzation we have built based on current climate systems."

Not sure I understand your point. Is there a typo in there?


"The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years."

That may be true....but nowhere does it state that that level is directly caused by man.


"Is the climate warming?

Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform."

Again....that may be true....but nowhere does it state that that level is directly caused by man. As your post mentions, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that the global average surface temperature increased approx. 0.6 degrees Celsius over the 20th century.

The Kyoto Treaty.
A crock.
If all of the nations agreed to it (and obeyed it), global temperatures would still increase. The difference by the year 2050 would be less than a tenth of a degree. China is predicted to out-emit us in five to ten years, and India will soon follow. They have no incentive to stop burning fossil fuels. 90% of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels. Kyoto would just about decimate every Third World country's economy and be a major blow to our own.

And why couldn't Al Gore get Bill Clinton to sign it?

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

Do I think I'm Galileo? Of course not.
However, those professionals who perform their own research and propose an alternate reason for global warming - based on science - have been threatened with loss of life and income. I would consider that a form of persecution.

The globe may be warming, but man isn't the cause.

It's the Sun......

[a_unique_person]

You said.

1) Climate change has been present always. Long before man arrived. Therefore, man is not responsible for it.


The climate does change, climate also has stable states, when the chaotic behaviour still remains within boundaries. In chaos theory, IIRC, it is called a strange attractor. When it departs from that state, it does so for a reason. It's just a matter of using science to find that reason. In this case, man is the reason.

Eg. People have always been killed in the past by murderers. Bill has not been alive in the past when they were killed, therefore he can never be responsible for murder.

[msmith40]

Whatever the rights or wrongs of the issue, as Randi points out, choosing the members of a committee on at topic as important as this one, based, not on their ability to find the truth, but to agree beforehand to a predetermined decision, is disgraceful. It doesn't matter which party did it.


Wellll.......I'm not sure it was a 'predetermined decision'.

Boehner asked Gilchrest: "...if the Maryland Republican would say humans are not causing climate change..."

Gilchrest would not.
Therefore, one can rightly assume that Gilchrest believes that man does cause climate change.

So, what Boehner should have asked him was: "Prove it."

Believe that Sylvia Browne can speak with the dead?
Prove it.

Believe that bigfoot exists?
Prove it.

If Gilchrest - or anyone - believes that man is the cause of climate change/global warming, I only ask that they prove it.

.............but I don't have $1,000,000.00 to hand over..........:D

[a_unique_person]

s Wellll.......I'm not sure it was a 'predetermined decision'.

Boehner asked Gilchrest: "...if the Maryland Republican would say humans are not causing climate change..."

Gilchrest would not.
Therefore, one can rightly assume that Gilchrest believes that man does cause climate change.

So, what Boehner should have asked him was: "Prove it."

Believe that Sylvia Browne can speak with the dead?
Prove it.

Believe that bigfoot exists?
Prove it.

If Gilchrest - or anyone - believes that man is the cause of climate change/global warming, I only ask that they prove it.

.............but I don't have $1,000,000.00 to hand over..........:D

It was suppsed to be a comittee investigating the evidence. The question should have been " Will you look at the evidence, and come to a decision based on that?"



House Republican Leader John Boehner would have appointed Rep. Wayne Gilchrest to the bipartisan Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming -- but only if the Maryland Republican would say humans are not causing climate change, Gilchrest said.
"I said, 'John, I can't do that,'" Gilchrest, R-1st-Md., said in an interview. "He said, 'Come on. Do me a favor. I want to help you here.'

[msmith40]

You said.



The climate does change, climate also has stable states, when the chaotic behaviour still remains within boundaries. In chaos theory, IIRC, it is called a strange attractor. When it departs from that state, it does so for a reason. It's just a matter of using science to find that reason. In this case, man is the reason.

The proof being....?

Eg. People have always been killed in the past by murderers. Bill has not been alive in the past when they were killed, therefore he can never be responsible for murder.


No.
Bill cannot be responsible for THOSE murders.

Again, man may be contributing to climate change.
However.......no one has proven that man is the CAUSE of climate change/global warming.

And (again) one volcano spewed more CO2 than all of mankind did in the past 100 years.

[a_unique_person]

Bill cannot be responsible for murders in the past, he can be responsible for murders while he is alive.

The proof? Urenpentant Sinner has already posted links to the IPCC web site. There is a lot of reading to do there.

[msmith40]

s

It was suppsed to be a comittee investigating the evidence. The question should have been " Will you look at the evidence, and come to a decision based on that?"

Ok......I'm not quite sure who you wanted to look at the evidence...
If Gilchrest believes in something, then one can assume that he has evidence to back up his belief, which he could've shown to Boehner. I don't know that he offered any, or if Boehner wasn't interested, or if Boehner himself has opposing evidence.

[a_unique_person]

Ok......I'm not quite sure who you wanted to look at the evidence...
If Gilchrest believes in something, then one can assume that he has evidence to back up his belief, which he could've shown to Boehner. I don't know that he offered any, or if Boehner wasn't interested, or if Boehner himself has opposing evidence.



only if the Maryland Republican would say humans are not causing climate change



I think that's pretty unambigous, the question was not did he believe in humans causing global warming, the question was only, would he say that humans are not causing global warming.

[ConspiRaider]

However.......no one has proven that man is the CAUSE of climate change/global warming.

And (again) one volcano spewed more CO2 than all of mankind did in the past 100 years.
You're oversimplifying, something that a person such as Rush Limbaugh is typically guilty of in this matter. Please don't tell me you get your information on this (or indeed ANYTHING) from that idiot Limbaugh. Lie to me, even if you do.

It is NOT just an increase in CO2 (from 280 to 380 ppm) over the last 200 years. It's also a more than doubling of the amount of methane in that period, tied to human activity. You know where a large part of that methane increase is from? Land usage for rice paddies, primarily in India and China. Coal mines kick out methane. Obviously, decaying garbage. Grazing herds of animals, lots of 'em. Drive through certain parts of Texas and you'll see - er, smell - what I mean. Termites - those nasty little buggers - generate methane. Methane has a far smaller concentration in the atmosphere - yet it's 23 times more efficient at re-radiating infrared radiation than is carbon dioxide.

It's also deforestation. We love to burn down forests and plant crops instead. Seems like an even trade, right? It's all plants, right? WRONG! Not in the context of plants acting as natural sinks for CO2. As an example: Let's say you have an acre of crops, and that acre pulls 1,000 tons of CO2 out of the air each year. Impressive, yes? But as forest, it would pull 20,000 tons. Minimally. Could be as much as 100,000 tons. So, we are destroying the best equalizer the planet has devised for stabilizing the atmosphere. Natural plant growth.

If weather patterns shift enough, for example, to affect snowfall for freshwater supply in the Himalayas: What happens when maybe 300 million people have to go on the move to escape dehydration? They're going to want to go somewhere. Rather quickly. Problems. Big huge giant problems.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Someone earlier in the thread suggested checking out Ch. 4's Great Global Warming Swindle video.

Turns out it needs to be taken with massive doses of salt.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece

[BillyJoe]

Had to change it back at 10pm to catch the new penn and teller!Hope you didn't leave your sceptical faculties at the door whilst watching that program. ;)

[BillyJoe]

Where they proceed to use the same techniques which An Inconvenient Truth was criticized for using.Linda, I can't believe it! We agree! :)

[BillyJoe]

I agree.

Well then, we're all just one big happy family. :)

[fsol]

So let’s recap:
1) The Earth has been warming/cooling forever.

I wouldn't say forever, but no one is disputing this.

2) Climate change? A natural occurrence. Not man-made. The science points to the current global warming being influenced by man. Through the burning of fossil fuels we are kind of "short-circuiting" the carbon cycle. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing because we are putting it there.

3) The Earth has experienced much higher temperatures in the past, and man has survived.If this is true, I can only assume that there weren't 6 billion people around at that time.

4) Solar activity precedes higher Earth temperatures. Higher Earth temperatures precede increased CO2 levels.Well, the correlation between solar activity, on its own, and higher temperatures is fairly dubious. But higher temperatures can via feedback mechanisms lead to increases in CO2. That CO2 will then exacerbate the warming.

5) One volcano can spew more CO2 than the entire human population can generate in 100 years. And if we could create a way to reduce the levels of CO2 emitted by volcanoes, should we? Species have come/gone for all these years without our interference (and with God-knows how many erupting volcanoes), so should we tinker with the recipe?I wouldn't be so sure about that.

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

[BillyJoe]

That's just so much bullcrap, mate. Anyone with an ounce of gray matter can weigh the evidence and come to their own conclusion. That conclusion may not be what you or I might desire, but that's neither here nor there...There seems to be a scientific momentum around global warming to make it an issue that shouldn't be ignored.


Why do we always disagree???

Well, not disagree exactly but...

The scientific consensus at this point in time runs something like this: At least some of global warming is human-caused. Global warming, if left unchecked, is going to have disastrous consequences in the near future. We can do something to avoid this catastrophe.

All we mean by "the scientific consensus" is that the majority of scientists (in this case, a large majority) agree that this is the most likely true state of affairs regarding global warming. We must act on this consensus because it represents our best informed "guess" as to what the future holds.

This consensus conclusion could turn out to be wrong.
If it does turn out to be wrong, we would still have been right to act on it, because we would have been acting on our best available scientifically derived, evidence-based information.

Also, we may never find out whether it was wrong or not.

[BillyJoe]

msmith,

Why was your original post framed to suggest you were saying something other than - and more controversial than - what you are now saying. Or was it just me misinterpreting your intentions in that post?

BillyJoe

[Moochie]

1) Climate change has been present always. Long before man arrived. Therefore, man is not responsible for it.

<snipped>

Can you maybe revisit the issue in a few hundred years' time? See how your descendants are doing?


M.

[Moochie]

Why do we always disagree???

Well, not disagree exactly but...

The scientific consensus at this point in time runs something like this: At least some of global warming is human-caused. Global warming, if left unchecked, is going to have disastrous consequences in the near future. We can do something to avoid this catastrophe.

All we mean by "the scientific consensus" is that the majority of scientists (in this case, a large majority) agree that this is the most likely true state of affairs regarding global warming. We must act on this consensus because it represents our best informed "guess" as to what the future holds.

This consensus conclusion could turn out to be wrong.
If it does turn out to be wrong, we would still have been right to act on it, because we would have been acting on our best available scientifically derived, evidence-based information.

Also, we may never find out whether it was wrong or not.


Disagree? Not moi!

I said there's "scientific momentum around global warming to make it an issue that shouldn't be ignored."

I think it is hideously stupid to turn this issue into a proverbial "political football," as some posters here have clearly done.

I certainly hope that it (global warming) is all part of a natural cycle that will self-correct in time. But shouldn't we make every effort to discover the true state of affairs, and if negative, what we can do about it?

M.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

I am going to get a lot of flack for a lot of logical fallacies in this post, but so be it...

The way I see it , if the scientific consensus convinces governments and industry to do more research on improving the efficiency of items that run on carbon fuels, and more efficient power stations and in 50 years we find new information that the consensus was wrong in hindsight, we have still gained.

I have gained personally, as my power bills and heating bills are lower, the industry benefits because they don't have to build as many inefficient coal burning power stations for e.g.. My vehicle goes farther on a tank of gas, so save $. At the moment, energy companies like British Petroleum Products are a couple of decades ahead in efficiency due to R and D compared to some of their competitors, and they are reaping the financial rewards already. If scientific consensus changes in 50 years, so be it. I would rather make decisions on current scientific consensus rather that a current administration's faith based reasoning.

[pebbe]

Maybe we should just tell everyone to watch the Great Global Warming Swindle and An Inconvenient Truth?

I watched the Great Global Warming Swindle, and I think it did a pretty good job debunking An Inconvenient Truth. I'm convinced. Unless this film is made up of lies. Is it? Fact is, I can't tell.

What surprises me is that James Randy writes he is convinced by watching An Inconvenient Truth. How can a sceptic let himself be convinced by a movie? A movie is just a story, not a balanced argument with facts.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Someone earlier in the thread suggested checking out Ch. 4's Great Global Warming Swindle video.

Turns out it needs to be taken with massive doses of salt.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece

I watched the Great Global Warming Swindle, and I think it did a pretty good job debunking An Inconvenient Truth. I'm convinced. Unless this film is made up of lies. Is it? Fact is, I can't tell.

What surprises me is that James Randy writes he is convinced by watching An Inconvenient Truth. How can a sceptic let himself be convinced by a movie? A movie is just a story, not a balanced argument with facts.

See my post from above (content quoted and you can take the link just after my user ID).

And welcome to the forum. :)

[BillyJoe]

Disagree? Not moi!

I said there's "scientific momentum around global warming to make it an issue that shouldn't be ignored."

Ah, fair enough, I thought I detected a hint there. Seems we,re actually in the same boat.
Yeah, and politicians be damned for playing their self-serving games

[Brian the Snail]

I watched the Great Global Warming Swindle, and I think it did a pretty good job debunking An Inconvenient Truth. I'm convinced. Unless this film is made up of lies. Is it? Fact is, I can't tell.

Yes (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76595).

[pebbe]

Even if CO2 is causing a problem, I don't see what we can do to stop it. Efforts like Kyoto seem like a huge waste of time and money. All it does is postpone the inevitable slightly. You waste more time than you safe.

The truth is, there is not a single country in the world that has acess to fossil fuell and decides to leave it where it is. All that is available will be expoited, used, or sold and used, until there is nothing left. Building cars that use less fuell won't change that. All it will do is slow it down a tiny bit, perhaps.

If CO2 indeed causes climate change, you have to prepare for that change. There is no way of preventing the burning of fossil fuell.

[varwoche]

John Boehner ... Roy Blunt ... The Great Global Warming Swindle ... junksciencedotcom LO f'in L. msmith40, meet actual science (http://gwstudies.blogspot.com/), actual science, meet msmith40.

[quixotecoyote]

I said that man is not responsible for global warming.

Global warming and climate change are not interchangable terms. Climate change is any change, global warming is a specific change. Man can be responsible for global warming without being responsible for all climate change. I don't want to argue against something you're not arguing for, so I'm going wait and see which terms you end up sticking with so I know what you're saying.

Not sure I understand your point. Is there a typo in there?

It was just a nitpick that global warming isn't predicted by anyone to force the human race into extinction (doom), but it is predicted to cause major disruption to the status quo.

I think everything else was already addressed by others since you posted.

[msmith40]

msmith,

Why was your original post framed to suggest you were saying something other than - and more controversial than - what you are now saying. Or was it just me misinterpreting your intentions in that post?

BillyJoe


Not sure. First post was to convey that man is not responsible for global warming. And to also express dismay that Randi would accept Gore's video as proof-positive of that theory.

I would need to know your impression of first post, and your impression of second post.

Also...........

(generally speaking)

Why the mention of Rush Limbaugh....?
Who on this post mentioned him....?
And........what was the point?

The disdain for Rush Limbaugh was obvious.
Therefore, I can only assume that someone wished to connect me with him....in some odd way....or paint me with the same brush....and to some extent, express a disdain for me as well.


I learned years ago to never enter a web-debate thinking you'll change anyone's opinion.

re: varwoche....

To merely dismiss the links I'd provided, but state that your links are 'actual science' is puzzling.

My links clearly show that they obtained their data from reputable sources.

Debate is good, but really......can't we be civil about it?

[msmith40]

Global warming and climate change are not interchangable terms. Climate change is any change, global warming is a specific change. Man can be responsible for global warming without being responsible for all climate change. .

How?

I don't want to argue against something you're not arguing for, so I'm going wait and see which terms you end up sticking with so I know what you're saying.

It was just a nitpick that global warming isn't predicted by anyone to force the human race into extinction (doom), but it is predicted to cause major disruption to the status quo.

I think everything else was already addressed by others since you posted.


Hmmmmmmmmm.

I could understand how the climate could change...but not necessarily lead to global warming (it could lead to global cooling, for example). But I don't understand how global warming wouldn't be the result of climate change.

Heightened CO2 = global warming
But wouldn't those same heightened CO2 levels also affect the climate?

[quixotecoyote]

Look all I'm saying from that last post is that you've been using climate change and global warming as synonyms. They aren't, the second is a subset of the first. Therefore while it is not contested that some climate change has happened without the intervention (or existence) of humans, that in no way says anything about the specific change of global warming happening in the specific timeframe of 1800-2007 under the specific conditions that humans have created. You have to look elsewhere for that, and you have to watch the terminology

Heightened CO2 = global warming

This is what mystifies me, you admit this. And you must know that humans are causing greater amounts of CO2 then would happen nautrally, but you don't then make the next step. Once you've granted this premise then it's a simple syllogism.

Heightened CO2 = global warming
Humans increase CO2 beyond natural levels
Therefore humans increase global warming beyond natural levels.

[ConspiRaider]

Why the mention of Rush Limbaugh....?
Who on this post mentioned him....?
And........what was the point?

The disdain for Rush Limbaugh was obvious.
Therefore, I can only assume that someone wished to connect me with him....in some odd way....or paint me with the same brush....and to some extent, express a disdain for me as well.

What you are saying - the thrust of your statements on global warming - is almost verbatim to the drivel that Rush Limbaugh pumps out of his right-wing propagandist radio talk show. In fact, in America anyway, global warming is a pure partisan issue. Right wingers deny it, scoff at it, quote oil company-funded "studies" from "experts" denying AGW, attack the American politician who has been researching the topic for 30 years (Gore), belittle scientists across the board and so forth.

Normal people (politically, that is) in America have other views on global warming that are not so lock-step right wingish.

It is embarrassing and unfortunate, but the politicization of AGW is a hardcore fact here in the USA.

And THAT forms the basis of my frustration, and the frustration of many others, that the right wing-dominated mainstream media in the USA gets to squelch, ridicule and suppress anything and anyone involved in revealing the information science has produced on AGW. And that information points to the fact that we had damned well better look at this issue starkly, and decide the actions we should take to address it. Now.

The USA is being left behind on this. And a huge factor is the USA right wing's ability - with their domination of big business and big media - to distort facts and delay action. For purely selfish and greedy reasons.

[Moochie]

What you are saying - the thrust of your statements on global warming - is almost verbatim to the drivel that Rush Limbaugh pumps out of his right-wing propagandist radio talk show. In fact, in America anyway, global warming is a pure partisan issue. Right wingers deny it, scoff at it, quote oil company-funded "studies" from "experts" denying AGW, attack the American politician who has been researching the topic for 30 years (Gore), belittle scientists across the board and so forth.

Normal people (politically, that is) in America have other views on global warming that are not so lock-step right wingish.

It is embarrassing and unfortunate, but the politicization of AGW is a hardcore fact here in the USA.

And THAT forms the basis of my frustration, and the frustration of many others, that the right wing-dominated mainstream media in the USA gets to squelch, ridicule and suppress anything and anyone involved in revealing the information science has produced on AGW. And that information points to the fact that we had damned well better look at this issue starkly, and decide the actions we should take to address it. Now.

The USA is being left behind on this. And a huge factor is the USA right wing's ability - with their domination of big business and big media - to distort facts and delay action. For purely selfish and greedy reasons.


:bigclap

Did someone say Sean Hannity?

M.

[fls]

[B]Not sure. First post was to convey that man is not responsible for global warming. And to also express dismay that Randi would accept Gore's video as proof-positive of that theory.

I highly doubt that Randi would accept Gore's video as proof-positive. I am pretty sure that what Randi is accepting is the consensus view of experts, and what Randi appreciates is that Gore is acting as a statesman by dedicating himself to presenting this information.

Linda

[Drysdale]

What you are saying - the thrust of your statements on global warming - is almost verbatim to the drivel that Rush Limbaugh pumps out of his right-wing propagandist radio talk show. In fact, in America anyway, global warming is a pure partisan issue. Right wingers deny it, scoff at it, quote oil company-funded "studies" from "experts" denying AGW, attack the American politician who has been researching the topic for 30 years (Gore), belittle scientists across the board and so forth.

Normal people (politically, that is) in America have other views on global warming that are not so lock-step right wingish.

It is embarrassing and unfortunate, but the politicization of AGW is a hardcore fact here in the USA.

And THAT forms the basis of my frustration, and the frustration of many others, that the right wing-dominated mainstream media in the USA gets to squelch, ridicule and suppress anything and anyone involved in revealing the information science has produced on AGW. And that information points to the fact that we had damned well better look at this issue starkly, and decide the actions we should take to address it. Now.

The USA is being left behind on this. And a huge factor is the USA right wing's ability - with their domination of big business and big media - to distort facts and delay action. For purely selfish and greedy reasons.

Right wing media domination? Holy cow, I'd only thought I'd heard it all I guess. Geez Louise.

On a side note, Mr Gore has done all this research supposedly yet still insists on taking private jets everywhere and lives in a huge house that must eat up electricity yet demands everyone else cut back?

Right, think now I understand. Anyone that disagrees must be a republican. Real open minded there are'nt we?
It always astounds me that those who think they are the open minded ones want to shut up any differing views.

And I'm not a republican. If it were up to me I'd throw the whole lot of em out on their butts.

[jimtron]

On a side note, Mr Gore has done all this research supposedly yet still insists on taking private jets everywhere and lives in a huge house that must eat up electricity yet demands everyone else cut back?

Could you quote one of his demands that everyone else cut back? I'm curious to see a specific example of this hypocrisy.

[a_unique_person]

Right wing media domination? Holy cow, I'd only thought I'd heard it all I guess. Geez Louise.

On a side note, Mr Gore has done all this research supposedly yet still insists on taking private jets everywhere and lives in a huge house that must eat up electricity yet demands everyone else cut back?

Right, think now I understand. Anyone that disagrees must be a republican. Real open minded there are'nt we?
It always astounds me that those who think they are the open minded ones want to shut up any differing views.

And I'm not a republican. If it were up to me I'd throw the whole lot of em out on their butts.

If you want to, I'd be quite happy if you completely ignore Al Gore, and anything he has to do with the topic. Forget him, he is irrelevant. Go straight to the IPCC and it's science, in detail. In fact, more detail than you probably want to know about. Or, if you prefer, www.realclimate.org.

[Drysdale]

Could you quote one of his demands that everyone else cut back? I'm curious to see a specific example of this hypocrisy.


I dont know about a specific demand per se though I'm sure I could find one.
The point is this though, isnt that exactly what his movie is doing?
Telling us we need to reform our ways?

[Drysdale]

If you want to, I'd be quite happy if you completely ignore Al Gore, and anything he has to do with the topic. Forget him, he is irrelevant. Go straight to the IPCC and it's science, in detail. In fact, more detail than you probably want to know about. Or, if you prefer, www.realclimate.org.

Think you're misunderstanding my point. Is global warming happening?
Probably, not many disagree on that. Are we responsible and if so can we stop it? Haven't seen anything that proves conclusively either one.

Basically what I'm saying is I think this is just another in a long line of the world is ending scams. I have a feeling 10 years from now this will be forgotten and something else will cause all of our doom.

Thats just my view for what it's worth.

[a_unique_person]

Think you're misunderstanding my point. Is global warming happening?
Probably, not many disagree on that. Are we responsible and if so can we stop it? Haven't seen anything that proves conclusively either one.

Basically what I'm saying is I think this is just another in a long line of the world is ending scams. I have a feeling 10 years from now this will be forgotten and something else will cause all of our doom.

Thats just my view for what it's worth.

Argument from ignorance. Go to the IPCC web site, read the evidence.

Please provide evidence that the scientists providing evidence to the IPCC are involved in a scam.

[BillyJoe]

Basically what I'm saying is I think this is just another in a long line of the world is ending scams. I have a feeling 10 years from now this will be forgotten and something else will cause all of our doom.

I have a feeling you are wrong.
One of us will be correct, but it won't be because of that feeling I had. :D

Thats just my view for what it's worth.

Hmmm....:D

[jimtron]

I dont know about a specific demand per se though I'm sure I could find one.
The point is this though, isnt that exactly what his movie is doing?
Telling us we need to reform our ways?

I haven't seen the film, but yes, my assumption is that he's suggesting that we pollute less to reduce damage to our environment. I've not heard him tell others that they shouldn't fly or live in big houses, but if you do find a specific quote from him that is hypocritical, please post it.

Here's info about the film from WP:

An Inconvenient Truth explores data and predictions regarding climate change, interspersed with personal events from the life of Al Gore. Through a Keynote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynote_%28software%29) presentation (dubbed "the slide show") that he has presented worldwide, Gore reviews the scientific evidence for global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change), discusses the politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_global_warming) and economics of global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_global_warming), and describes the consequences he believes global climate change will produce if the amount of human-generated greenhouse gases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases) is not significantly reduced in the very near future.
The film includes many segments intended to refute critics who say that global warming is insignificant or unproven. For example, Gore discusses the risk of the collapse of a major ice sheet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_sheet) in Greenland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland) or West Antarctica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctica), either of which could raise global sea levels by approximately 20 feet (6m), flooding coastal areas and producing 100 million refugees. Meltwater from Greenland, because of its lower salinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinity), could halt the Gulf Stream (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream) current and quickly trigger dramatic local cooling in Northern Europe.
In an effort to explain the global warming phenomenon, the film examines annual temperature and CO2 levels for the past 600,000 years in Antarctic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica) ice core samples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core). An analogy to Hurricane Katrina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina) is used for those familiar with the 30-ft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ft) to 45-ft (9 to 14m) waves that destroyed almost a million homes in coastal Mississippi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi), Louisiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana), Alabama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama), and Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida).
The documentary ends with Gore noting that if appropriate action is taken soon, the effects of global warming can be successfully reversed by releasing less carbon dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide) and growing more plants or trees. Gore calls upon viewers to learn how they can help in this initiative.

[Questioninggeller]

Okay someone get out their copy of Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World (1996?) and quote the passage where he addresses the need to accept that humans do have an impact on gobal warming even though some data wasn't conclusive.

(I don't have my copy nearby.)

And Shermer's comments:

June 2006 issue

The Flipping Point
How the evidence for anthropogenic global warming has converged to cause this environmental skeptic to make a cognitive flip

By Michael Shermer
...
Because of the complexity of the problem, environmental skepticism was once tenable. No longer. It is time to flip from skepticism to activism.



http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=000B557A-71ED-146C-ADB783414B7F0000

(Just to cite two people who know their science and are/were important skeptics.)

[Drysdale]

Argument from ignorance. Go to the IPCC web site, read the evidence.

Please provide evidence that the scientists providing evidence to the IPCC are involved in a scam.

You're still misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying the scientists are knowingly perpetrating a scam,
(though they may have their own motives,I dont know.
I look at anything the UN is involved in with great sketicism) I'm saying this is the latest of " the world is gonna end" scams pushed forth by media and/or politicians. I looked at the report. And I also took some time to look at conflicting reports/papers by other scientists. The IPCC report is not a unanimous conclusion by scientists. Computer based models and the numerous projections they made are just that,projections that they have no idea will stay the same or increase or decrease.

Whats the difference between what they are doing and what a gambler tries to do betting on racehorse's tendencies and projecting how he'll race? Whole lotta people lose their houses doing that. I'm not gonna have a long argument about it because I think it's a waste of time. I'm comfortable with my view and will just sit back and read for now.

[a_unique_person]

You're still misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying the scientists are knowingly perpetrating a scam,
(though they may have their own motives,I dont know.
I look at anything the UN is involved in with great sketicism) I'm saying this is the latest of " the world is gonna end" scams pushed forth by media and/or politicians. I looked at the report. And I also took some time to look at conflicting reports/papers by other scientists. The IPCC report is not a unanimous conclusion by scientists. Computer based models and the numerous projections they made are just that,projections that they have no idea will stay the same or increase or decrease.

Whats the difference between what they are doing and what a gambler tries to do betting on racehorse's tendencies and projecting how he'll race? Whole lotta people lose their houses doing that. I'm not gonna have a long argument about it because I think it's a waste of time. I'm comfortable with my view and will just sit back and read for now.

There is a big difference. You are saying you aren't going to have a bet on the race. You are in the race, like it or not. Global Warming is 'Global'. The models are just trying to tell what the winner will be, based on the laws of physics using scientific methods. I'm going with the science. It's not a guarantee, but it gives us a much better insight than avoiding the issue completely.

Doubling the CO2 will only add directly about 1C temperature rise, IIRC. It's the feedback mechanisms, which have been identified, that are the problem. Rising temperatures, due to the greenhouse effect, melt glaciers, which change albedo of the earth, which make it absorb more heat, which gets trapped in the greenhouse effect, for example. There is a lot more to it, but I hope that gives you an idea.

[BillyJoe]

Drysdale,

I hope I didn't put you off. I was just having a little joke. They get played on me all the time. Sometimes I get kicked in the head as well. Who cares? As long as you get something out of it.

AUP is correct. None of us have the expertise or the time to fully research this question ourselves. Most experts only research part of the issues involved in Global warming, relying on their colleagues and peer review to elucidate the other issues involved. The consensus achieved is certainly not unanimous. It rarely is. Sure there will be disagreement. There will even be the odd scientist who disagrees so strongly with the consensus statement, that he goes direct to the media. This can be good sometimes. Other times it's bad because the media tend to project the view that it's one scientist against another, or one group against another. However, it's usually one against many.

And the consensus position could turn out to be wrong. We just have to accept that. That's happened before as well. Sometimes this is presented as the lone maverick against a horde of closed-minded scientists or sceptics, but rarely is it as simple as that. Without going into details, an example of this is "Continental Drift".

But what else do you do? As AUP said, you can't opt out in this case. You can't flip a coin. You have to trust evidence-based, peer-reviewed, science to give us our best "guess" and work with that. Otherwise you have flipped a coin and it's got two tails. In any case, as someone else has said, who can argue, really, with cleaning up the environment.

regards,
BillyJoe

[ConspiRaider]

Right wing media domination? Holy cow, I'd only thought I'd heard it all I guess. Geez Louise.

If you fail to see the right wing media domination in the USA, that explains a whole lot about you. For example, that you also don't see the problem with complacency on global warming.

On a side note, Mr Gore has done all this research supposedly yet still insists on taking private jets everywhere and lives in a huge house that must eat up electricity yet demands everyone else cut back?
Spoken directly from right wing talking points. Verbatim. You haven't even seen AIC, have you. Because if you had - then you'd know that a lot of the trips Gore made were on commercial airliners. Also, his house: The swift-boating site that "broke" the story is pure right-wing, pure anti-Gore.

Remember this: The right-wing in America is ONLY about eliminating opposition to their narrow views, by any means necessary. The right-wing doesn't "want" global warming, and therefore it's open season on anyone who sheds light on the issue.

[Moochie]

Could you quote one of his demands that everyone else cut back? I'm curious to see a specific example of this hypocrisy.

Yeah, this is the hypocrisy perpetuated by Hannity and his fellow-travellers at the Fox network.

The guy just about busts a gut pointing his finger at Gore's temerity in suggesting that we might like to consider how our lifestyles are impacting the only home we have.

M.

[Moochie]

You're still misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying the scientists are knowingly perpetrating a scam,
(though they may have their own motives,I dont know.
I look at anything the UN is involved in with great sketicism) I'm saying this is the latest of " the world is gonna end" scams pushed forth by media and/or politicians. I looked at the report. And I also took some time to look at conflicting reports/papers by other scientists. The IPCC report is not a unanimous conclusion by scientists. Computer based models and the numerous projections they made are just that,projections that they have no idea will stay the same or increase or decrease.

<snip>




You're beginning to sound like one of those 9/11 conspiracy freaks.

Go check out the evidence and then come back and offer some real justification for your POV. At the moment you're just coming across as an ignoramus.

M.

[Drysdale]

If you fail to see the right wing media domination in the USA, that explains a whole lot about you. For example, that you also don't see the problem with complacency on global warming.


Spoken directly from right wing talking points. Verbatim. You haven't even seen AIC, have you. Because if you had - then you'd know that a lot of the trips Gore made were on commercial airliners. Also, his house: The swift-boating site that "broke" the story is pure right-wing, pure anti-Gore.

Remember this: The right-wing in America is ONLY about eliminating opposition to their narrow views, by any means necessary. The right-wing doesn't "want" global warming, and therefore it's open season on anyone who sheds light on the issue.

Couple things here. Really dont want to turn this into a ploitical thread as I dislike both parties. Both are interested in promoting their agenda and not whats in best interests of the USA. But can you cite specifics as to why the media are right wing as you put it?

And about Gore, how much is "a lot of his trips"25%, 50%, 75%? Why does he need to fly on private jets at all? It's obvious you're very liberal which is fine, but that does'nt make you right and unbiased so dont act like you are just because you're a lib.

[Drysdale]

You're beginning to sound like one of those 9/11 conspiracy freaks.

Go check out the evidence and then come back and offer some real justification for your POV. At the moment you're just coming across as an ignoramus.

M.

I'm sounding like a 9/11 freak? I'm not the one claiming the world is gonna end because of us. I looked at the so called evidence and it just doesnt convince me that we're causing global warming. Have you tried to be skeptical of it at all? Have you read any papers or critiques critical of the IPCC findings at all? Or just taken them at their word. Computer models is not evidence. And I dont think you can take a small snapshot of the weather and predict
whats gonna happen. There's plenty of alternative views on global warming out there, I dont know why these guys are held up to godlike status. I think there's much more research to be done before we can say it's our fault or isnt. This isnt the towers falling where you can see it happening and apply physics. This is trying to predict the weather where if you're weatherman are like mine I'd say they hit about 50% of the time at best.

Do I think we need to police ourselves and try and keep the world or at least our country cleaner? Hell yea, but not at the whim's of that parody the Kyoto treaty and other BS legislation.

[jimtron]

And about Gore, how much is "a lot of his trips"25%, 50%, 75%? Why does he need to fly on private jets at all? It's obvious you're very liberal which is fine, but that does'nt make you right and unbiased so dont act like you are just because you're a lib.

What specifically has Gore said that is hypocritical?

[Drysdale]

What specifically has Gore said that is hypocritical?

Do I really need to find one? Doesnt his movie pretty much say it?

[a_unique_person]

It doesn't even matter if Gore is a hypocrite or not. The claims to support global warming are about science, not Gore.

[strathmeyer]

If anyone is bothered by the fact that a documentary by a politician is not convincing, or cannot present the required depth of evidence, please, go to the IPCC, http://www.ipcc.ch/, as US pointed out. There is only so much you can fit into a 1 1/2 hour film, so it can hardly represent the many papers and countless hours of scientific research into the topic.

Do you understand why asking me to check the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" for information on climate change feels like asking me to check the "International Panel on Paranormal Activity" for information on Paranormal Activity?

I've already read fifty pages on climate change and that didn't convince me. How many pages of the same convenient untruths am I supposed to read about something before I can safely assume it's all bullocks?

[Layla]

This reminds me of the ID'ers that criticize Darwin, as if bringing him down will somehow discredit the Theory of Evolution. It's a shame that Al Gore is a politician - it distracts from the situation and gives his political opponents an excuse to dismiss his arguments.

Ignore Al Gore's previous history - review the evidence and make up your mind.

[a_unique_person]

Do you understand why asking me to check the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" for information on climate change feels like asking me to check the "International Panel on Paranormal Activity" for information on Paranormal Activity?



Because it's run by scientists, and is evidence based?



I've already read fifty pages on climate change and that didn't convince me. How many pages of the same convenient untruths am I supposed to read about something before I can safely assume it's all bullocks?

Which 50 pages of what?

[ConspiRaider]

Couple things here. Really dont want to turn this into a ploitical thread as I dislike both parties. Both are interested in promoting their agenda and not whats in best interests of the USA. But can you cite specifics as to why the media are right wing as you put it?

U.S. Radio talk show hosts: #1, #2, #3 are right wingers (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage respectively). According to Talkers Magazine, March 2007. Right wingers and fundie Christians own the AM radio dial. Tremendous amount of influence. In many parts of the country - there simply ARE NO non-right-wing talk shows at all. Go through the south and the heart of the Midwest and you'll see what I mean.

Right-wingers are butt buddies with Big Business. These guys just love each other. Can't get enough of each other. Right-wingers think that Big Business should have no government restrictions on whatever Big Business wishes to do. Anti-union. Anti-regulation. Anti-minimum wage. Oh, these boys are cuddly with each other every second of every day.

Big Business OWNS television news here in our good old USA.

CBS: Owned by Viacom.
NBC: Owned by General Electric.
ABC: Owned by Disney.
MSNBC: Partially owned by Microsoft.
FOX: Owned by Rupert Murdoch.
CNN: Owned by Time Warner / America Online.

And about Gore, how much is "a lot of his trips"25%, 50%, 75%? Why does he need to fly on private jets at all? It's obvious you're very liberal which is fine, but that does'nt make you right and unbiased so dont act like you are just because you're a lib.
You do the research on Gore's flying habits, it's not critical for me. This global warming thing is a planetary issue, not one of whether Gore gets free drinks on his flights.

I'm liberal on some things, not on others. I'm as right or wrong as the next guy or girl. I am NOT unbiased in certain areas. I'm just trying to do the best I can like anybody else. Has nothing to do with whether or not I'm liberal.

[Drysdale]

U.S. Radio talk show hosts: #1, #2, #3 are right wingers (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage respectively). According to Talkers Magazine, March 2007. Right wingers and fundie Christians own the AM radio dial. Tremendous amount of influence. In many parts of the country - there simply ARE NO non-right-wing talk shows at all. Go through the south and the heart of the Midwest and you'll see what I mean.

Right-wingers are butt buddies with Big Business. These guys just love each other. Can't get enough of each other. Right-wingers think that Big Business should have no government restrictions on whatever Big Business wishes to do. Anti-union. Anti-regulation. Anti-minimum wage. Oh, these boys are cuddly with each other every second of every day.

Big Business OWNS television news here in our good old USA.

CBS: Owned by Viacom.
NBC: Owned by General Electric.
ABC: Owned by Disney.
MSNBC: Partially owned by Microsoft.
FOX: Owned by Rupert Murdoch.
CNN: Owned by Time Warner / America Online.


You do the research on Gore's flying habits, it's not critical for me. This global warming thing is a planetary issue, not one of whether Gore gets free drinks on his flights.

I'm liberal on some things, not on others. I'm as right or wrong as the next guy or girl. I am NOT unbiased in certain areas. I'm just trying to do the best I can like anybody else. Has nothing to do with whether or not I'm liberal.


OK, let me get this straight. Since the guys you mentioned are getting high ratings it's a conspiracy toward the right? I think it's called free enterprise. If you have a problem with that then you have other issues. People listen to them. Therefore they are succesful. There's been many left leaning talk show hosts and they had their own network,Air America that sank. Why is it a conspiracy if noone listens to them? I tried listening to it but it was pathetic. At least Al Franken was and the girls name I was listening to I dont know but she was',nt too great either. There's many theories as to why they dont succeed. I think it's because you hear the same point of view as the major networks and CNN,MSNBC etc.
Fox news used to be conservative I'll give you that one but it's not really anymore nearly as much.

The reason the other guys have such large audiences is they tell you things the major networks dont. You can disagree with them or call them out but I think thats irrefutable they do that.

And what does ownership of those stations have to do with anything? Whose supposed to own them the little grocer down the street? Why dont you look at how much they donate to each party then come talk about it.

[ConspiRaider]

OK, let me get this straight. Since the guys you mentioned are getting high ratings it's a conspiracy toward the right? I think it's called free enterprise. If you have a problem with that then you have other issues. People listen to them. Therefore they are succesful. There's been many left leaning talk show hosts and they had their own network,Air America that sank. Why is it a conspiracy if noone listens to them? I tried listening to it but it was pathetic. At least Al Franken was and the girls name I was listening to I dont know but she was',nt too great either. There's many theories as to why they dont succeed. I think it's because you hear the same point of view as the major networks and CNN,MSNBC etc.
Fox news used to be conservative I'll give you that one but it's not really anymore nearly as much.

The reason the other guys have such large audiences is they tell you things the major networks dont. You can disagree with them or call them out but I think thats irrefutable they do that.

And what does ownership of those stations have to do with anything? Whose supposed to own them the little grocer down the street? Why dont you look at how much they donate to each party then come talk about it.
You've never been on commercial radio as talent, have you. You've never had an FCC license, never had to study the rules and regs of the Federal Communications Commission. Don't know about the Fairness Doctrine, do you? You ought to. It was swept away under Reagan appointees, and then when Congress voted to bring it back - Reagan vetoed it.

I've been on commercial radio, had my FCC license back in 1973. Radio and broadcast television stations are supposed to "operate in the public interest", above all else. That's no longer the case. With no more Fairness Doctrine, a hammerlock by the right wing is firmly in place in the USA. None of us are served by that.

You probably won't read this, but others will. Good info.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm

[Pipirr]

ConspiRaider, a unique person, and all the other global warming believers here, I believe the problem that you have, is that you haven't attended the right debates and heard the most persuasive arguments against AGW.

Perhaps these sixth graders could enlighten you (http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?ID=15357).

Humans don’t cause global warming, a jury of sixth graders at Trail Ridge Middle School concluded Thursday after hearing opposing arguments from their peers.

You will learn that it's possible to refute the overwhelming scientific consensus in favour of AGW, to the satisfaction of a bunch of sixth graders, using some stuff downloaded from the internet on a wednesday afternoon.

Thats how tenuous the science is.

;)

(Alright, I'm kidding... but I am sorry that the kids missed the mark. Their creationist paleontology teacher probably didn't help. Pesky reality and it's left wing bias.)

[Drysdale]

You've never been on commercial radio as talent, have you. You've never had an FCC license, never had to study the rules and regs of the Federal Communications Commission. Don't know about the Fairness Doctrine, do you? You ought to. It was swept away under Reagan appointees, and then when Congress voted to bring it back - Reagan vetoed it.

I've been on commercial radio, had my FCC license back in 1973. Radio and broadcast television stations are supposed to "operate in the public interest", above all else. That's no longer the case. With no more Fairness Doctrine, a hammerlock by the right wing is firmly in place in the USA. None of us are served by that.

You probably won't read this, but others will. Good info.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm


1.Wasnt it found to violate the first amendment?
2.Who's gonna decide whats fair and whats not?

Is that what you really want? Thousands of radio stations and TV stations and they're all going to be regulated as to what's fair and what's not fair? Can you not see the danger there?

[feldesq]

Two brief points here:

Point One:
As critical thinking persons, we advocate (and maintain as a virtue) the unique responsibility to discern and explicate propaganda. Accordingly this concept (“propaganda”) has a special significance to our pantheon of critical thinkers.

Let’s use these two common definitions for “propaganda”: (1) The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. (2) Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause.

Our species has used and continues to use propaganda in all areas of human endeavor – government, religion, education, commerce – just more of the grist of human enterprise. That said, all propaganda is not deceit or flim flam. “An Inconvenient Truth” is clearly propaganda. Where it may deviate from the absolute truth (whatever that may be) by stacking the deck or using “glittering generalities” and the like, it does (and should) offend both our empirical sensibilities and our ethical values. Yet, we may do a disservice to our species lest we dismiss some of the key conclusions “An Inconvenient Truth” also clearly advances, such as (by way of quick examples), the importance of science as a steering force in determining public policy, the danger of allowing oligarchal commercial entities to have too much influence and control over government, the fact that human beings can and do increasingly influence our planet in both positive and negative ways, and that mankind has a responsibility to try to understand nature and protect life – in a manner unique to no other species on this planet (as far as we have up to this time been able to discern). In these conclusions – being advanced by Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” – I must heartily agree.

So perhaps in his enthusiasm for the foregoing conclusions and principles, Mr. Randi may have given too much credit (or the wrong category of credit) to Al Gore. As was more artfully stated by Anthony Quinn’s Arab chieftain, Auda abu Tayi, in the magnificent David Lean movie, “Lawrence of Arabia,” (speaking of “El Awrence” when his promise of gold in Aqaba did not come to fruition), “So then he [Mr. Randi] is not perfect!”

Point Two:
Whether global warming is caused by human activity or not, the dynamics of all natural phenomena pose a threat to our species and our planet, particularly as our populations continue on a Malthusian course. Manmade threats (e.g., nuclear war, bio-hazards, pollution, and the unforeseen dangers of technology itself) and periodically occurring cataclysmic events (collisions with Earth by asteroids and comets) pose very real possibilities for the extinction of all life on Earth (and destruction of the Earth itself). We have only recently begun to realize that these threats exist (perhaps too late). To focus our attention on global warming is good...but it is far from good enough. Carl Sagan clearly understood this (oh, Carl, how you would have so decried the recent cutback of NASA funds earmarked for the mapping of near-Earth and Earth-intercept objects!).

So while I eagerly join in this discussion dealing with both the Al Gore movie and Mr. Randi’s perhaps over-enthusiasm for it’s message, I insist that we must focus our attention upon these two vital points: Our need to understand how propaganda works on all of us (insidious but oh so effective), and what must be our unwavering commitment to placing critical thinking in the forefront of every issue. So let us measure the propaganda of “An Inconvenient Truth” within the critical thinking values we hold dear.

[Feo Amante]

The phrase keeps getting repeated, "Go to the IPCC". Well I've gone to the IPCC and read up there. They have a wonderful system of charts in jpeg that show how they come across their C02 data. Though nowhere on that chart do they state anything more than the map is a representation of stationary C02.

They have a chart for showing stationary sources of C02.

They speak of methods for storing C02. They speak of how to capture it, store it, transport it. Many of the charts are prefaced with the words prospective, potential and global-potential, may be, prospective, modeled, scenario, and so on.

But what about the actual facts? What about the Science? Well, if you want that then you can order their catalogs or books. Many of which are available only to government entities. Oh well.

I'm sure they must have something solidly informative there. Could someone provide a direct link?

In fact, what they DO have big and bold and dominating the page is the upcoming report for 2007 which won't be released until April 6 of this year.

None of us are psychics, so I guess we wait and look at the merits of that report?

[Feo Amante]

message removed

[fsol]

I'm sure they must have something solidly informative there. Could someone provide a direct link?

In fact, what they DO have big and bold and dominating the page is the upcoming report for 2007 which won't be released until April 6 of this year.

None of us are psychics, so I guess we wait and look at the merits of that report?

The report summary for policy makers is available for download.

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

I think http://realclimate.org is also a good place to go and find information about global warming.

[Feo Amante]

This reminds me of the ID'ers that criticize Darwin, as if bringing him down will somehow discredit the Theory of Evolution. It's a shame that Al Gore is a politician - it distracts from the situation and gives his political opponents an excuse to dismiss his arguments.

Ignore Al Gore's previous history - review the evidence and make up your mind.
YOW! You are denigrating a scientist like Charles Darwin to the level of a politician like Al Gore?

I'm losing interest in this thread, though I started it. I expected a certain level of information, even exuberant polarizing debate; but stimulating debate all the same. Instead, this has fallen to name calling (butt-buddies? Your elevated imagery leaves me speechless); whacked-out conspiracy theories, injections of bigotry (the catcalls of "You must be Right-Wing! Like Rush Limbaugh! Hannity! etc.), and so on. Any of the believers could have offered specifics. Any of the skeptics (including me) could have refuted specifics (if they were found to be debatable). Nothing came from either side.

Both sides here are purposefully being non-specific and quoting generalities. Well, except for the Mt. Pinatubo thing. But I can't find any credible data anywhere that says the volcano spouted more C02 than humans have in the past century. I know the person who brought this up is on my skeptic side, but still. Again, a link to sources would be nice.

It's that whole not-quoting-sources thing that got me to start this thread in the first place.

Oh well. Nice salon debate, but no enlightenment and certainly no winning of hearts and minds on this one. As always, the skeptics on this don't have to prove a negative and the proponents are intimating that the skeptics are right-wing Limbaugh lovers.

Yeah.

Cat-calls of "You X-Lover!" have always flown from the mouths of intelligent discourse.

Have your fun.

[Steven Howard]

Any of the believers could have offered specifics. Any of the skeptics (including me) could have refuted specifics (if they were found to be debatable).

From the very beginning, people have been calling on you to cite specific examples of what you think is wrong with An Inconvenient Truth:

don't tell us that gore's movie is flawed-- show us.

Give us specifics, not generalities.

What specific spelunking details were wrong in the movie? I mean, you wouldn't mention your credentials as a spelunker in that sentence unless they were somehow relevant, right?

As a number of others have requested, can you be specific? Vague criticism like this is of no value.



This is from your first post:

Until I realized that either Al was knowingly lying, purposefully avoiding anything that would interfere with his pet theory, or, to be most kind, simply exaggerating wildly.

When you start a thread with comments like this, it is no way incumbent upon anyone else to construct your argument for you. You need to show us the specific lies, omissions, and exaggerations you're talking about.

So far, your entire argument about the content of the movie has been:

'But that's not how it works! But that's not how it works!'

To which the only sensible reply is "Your pronouns need antecedents. What's not how what works?"

Unless you get specific, the only response you'll get to "That's not how it works!" is going to be "Yes it is."

[Complexity]

Randi's commentary and the comments in this thread finally made me do it - I watched the film yesterday afternoon.

I haven't been very impressed by Gore before this and wasn't expecting very much. Going into the film, I thought that there was a lot of evidence for global warming but was undecided about how much of it is due to people.

I was impressed by the film and by Gore. The objections that several people have had in this thread (e.g. charts, Gore's life) were unfounded. He very effectively addressed his talk to a broad audience.

The next thing I'm going to do is read the IPCC report.

[Moochie]

I'm sounding like a 9/11 freak? I'm not the one claiming the world is gonna end because of us. I looked at the so called evidence and it just doesnt convince me that we're causing global warming. Have you tried to be skeptical of it at all? Have you read any papers or critiques critical of the IPCC findings at all? Or just taken them at their word. Computer models is not evidence. And I dont think you can take a small snapshot of the weather and predict
whats gonna happen. There's plenty of alternative views on global warming out there, I dont know why these guys are held up to godlike status. I think there's much more research to be done before we can say it's our fault or isnt. This isnt the towers falling where you can see it happening and apply physics. This is trying to predict the weather where if you're weatherman are like mine I'd say they hit about 50% of the time at best.

Do I think we need to police ourselves and try and keep the world or at least our country cleaner? Hell yea, but not at the whim's of that parody the Kyoto treaty and other BS legislation.


The bona fides of those with "alternative" views scares the bejesus out of me.

Incidentally, what "agenda" do a majority of the world's scientists have in bringing forward this information?

M.

[Moochie]

This reminds me of the ID'ers that criticize Darwin, as if bringing him down will somehow discredit the Theory of Evolution. It's a shame that Al Gore is a politician - it distracts from the situation and gives his political opponents an excuse to dismiss his arguments.

Ignore Al Gore's previous history - review the evidence and make up your mind.

Well, there's really no underestimating the stupidity of the willfully ignorant.

How stupid is pointing the finger at the messenger?

I guess the question is academic, since the stupid appear to rule the world, for the time being, anyway.

M.

ETA: I'd be willing to lay bets that both the country I call home -- Australia, and the U.S. will see changes of government in the next two years. Stupidity cannot rule forever. :)

[Moochie]

The phrase keeps getting repeated, "Go to the IPCC". Well I've gone to the IPCC and read up there. They have a wonderful system of charts in jpeg that show how they come across their C02 data. Though nowhere on that chart do they state anything more than the map is a representation of stationary C02.

They have a chart for showing stationary sources of C02.

They speak of methods for storing C02. They speak of how to capture it, store it, transport it. Many of the charts are prefaced with the words prospective, potential and global-potential, may be, prospective, modeled, scenario, and so on.

But what about the actual facts? What about the Science? Well, if you want that then you can order their catalogs or books. Many of which are available only to government entities. Oh well.

I'm sure they must have something solidly informative there. Could someone provide a direct link?

In fact, what they DO have big and bold and dominating the page is the upcoming report for 2007 which won't be released until April 6 of this year.

None of us are psychics, so I guess we wait and look at the merits of that report?

Why not do your own "science"? Stick your plughole over the open end of your vehicle's exhaust pipe and breathe deeply. :D

M.

[Moochie]

YOW! You are denigrating a scientist like Charles Darwin to the level of a politician like Al Gore?

I'm losing interest in this thread, though I started it. I expected a certain level of information, even exuberant polarizing debate; but stimulating debate all the same. Instead, this has fallen to name calling (butt-buddies? Your elevated imagery leaves me speechless); whacked-out conspiracy theories, injections of bigotry (the catcalls of "You must be Right-Wing! Like Rush Limbaugh! Hannity! etc.), and so on. Any of the believers could have offered specifics. Any of the skeptics (including me) could have refuted specifics (if they were found to be debatable). Nothing came from either side.

Both sides here are purposefully being non-specific and quoting generalities. Well, except for the Mt. Pinatubo thing. But I can't find any credible data anywhere that says the volcano spouted more C02 than humans have in the past century. I know the person who brought this up is on my skeptic side, but still. Again, a link to sources would be nice.

It's that whole not-quoting-sources thing that got me to start this thread in the first place.

Oh well. Nice salon debate, but no enlightenment and certainly no winning of hearts and minds on this one. As always, the skeptics on this don't have to prove a negative and the proponents are intimating that the skeptics are right-wing Limbaugh lovers.

Yeah.

Cat-calls of "You X-Lover!" have always flown from the mouths of intelligent discourse.

Have your fun.

Yeah, this thread ought to be in the Politics section.

M.

[Moochie]

From the very beginning, people have been calling on you to cite specific examples of what you think is wrong with An Inconvenient Truth:












This is from your first post:



When you start a thread with comments like this, it is no way incumbent upon anyone else to construct your argument for you. You need to show us the specific lies, omissions, and exaggerations you're talking about.

So far, your entire argument about the content of the movie has been:



To which the only sensible reply is "Your pronouns need antecedents. What's not how what works?"

Unless you get specific, the only response you'll get to "That's not how it works!" is going to be "Yes it is."


Lovely!

Global warming isn't woo, last time I looked. Hence I treat the nay-sayers with the derision they deserve.

M

[a_unique_person]

The phrase keeps getting repeated, "Go to the IPCC". Well I've gone to the IPCC and read up there. They have a wonderful system of charts in jpeg that show how they come across their C02 data. Though nowhere on that chart do they state anything more than the map is a representation of stationary C02.

They have a chart for showing stationary sources of C02.

They speak of methods for storing C02. They speak of how to capture it, store it, transport it. Many of the charts are prefaced with the words prospective, potential and global-potential, may be, prospective, modeled, scenario, and so on.

But what about the actual facts? What about the Science? Well, if you want that then you can order their catalogs or books. Many of which are available only to government entities. Oh well.

I'm sure they must have something solidly informative there. Could someone provide a direct link?

In fact, what they DO have big and bold and dominating the page is the upcoming report for 2007 which won't be released until April 6 of this year.

None of us are psychics, so I guess we wait and look at the merits of that report?

It's not the best made web site.

The scientific basis for their claims as of 2001, soon to be updated.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

[buffalocust]

Not so much a comment on the film, but this comes from Media Lens, in one of its recent alerts on Global Warming--(http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php)

"...the fact remains that most serious climate experts are in broad agreement on climate change. In December 2004, Naomi Oreskes of the University of California at San Diego reported in the leading journal, Science, on her analysis of a sample of 928 papers published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 under the keywords "climate change". (Quoted, Naomi Oreskes, 'Beyond The Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,' Science, 3 December 2004: Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686, DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618; www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686))

Of all the papers, 75% either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or climate issues in the geological past, taking no position on current human-induced climate change. Remarkably, not one of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

[varwoche]

Think you're misunderstanding my point. Is global warming happening? Probably, not many disagree on that. Are we responsible and if so can we stop it? Haven't seen anything that proves conclusively either one. And nor have I seen anything conclusive that proves the "face" on Mars is just a natural geologic feature that happens to look a bit like a face.

(No comment on the "can we stop it" part, other than the answer is surely no if we don't try.)
Basically what I'm saying is I think this is just another in a long line of the world is ending scams. I have a feeling 10 years from now this will be forgotten and something else will cause all of our doom. Putting aside the world-is-ending straw man, if you pay attention to the science (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1976047#post1976047) you should hopefully learn that your position is irrational.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Oreskes study is BS
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm

Not so much a comment on the film, but this comes from Media Lens, in one of its recent alerts on Global Warming--(http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php)

"...the fact remains that most serious climate experts are in broad agreement on climate change. In December 2004, Naomi Oreskes of the University of California at San Diego reported in the leading journal, Science, on her analysis of a sample of 928 papers published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 under the keywords "climate change". (Quoted, Naomi Oreskes, 'Beyond The Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,' Science, 3 December 2004: Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686, DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618; www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686))

Of all the papers, 75% either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or climate issues in the geological past, taking no position on current human-induced climate change. Remarkably, not one of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

[fsol]

Oreskes study is BS
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm


It might not be perfect, but then neither was the rebuttal.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf
http://norvig.com/oreskes.html

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

It might not be perfect, but then neither was the rebuttal.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf
http://norvig.com/oreskes.html

There are more problems with IPCC reports, including that there may be changed to find the conclussions (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1101).


About the rebuttals, read the secon link to the end :)
"
Update: The Oreskes abstracts

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm

Naomi Oreskes: “Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”

Below is a list of abstracts (found in the same ISI data set) that reject the “consensus position”.

Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues: Annual report
Gerhard LC, Hanson BM
AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471 Apr 2000
Abstract: The AAPG Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues has studied the supposition of human-induced climate change since the committee’s inception in January 1998. This paper details the progress and findings of the committee through June 1999, At that time there had been essentially no geologic input into the global climate change debate. The following statements reflect the current state of climate knowledge from the geologic perspective as interpreted by the majority of the committee membership. The committee recognizes that new data could change its conclusions, The earth’s climate is constantly changing owing to natural variability in earth processes. Natural climate variability over recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time.





Review and Impacts of Climate-change Uncertainties
Fernau ME, Makofske WJ, South DW
Futures 25 (8): 850-863 Oct 1993
Abstract: This article examines the status of the scientific uncertainties in predicting and verifying global climate change that hinder aggressive policy making. More and better measurements and statistical techniques are needed to detect and confirm the existence of greenhouse-gas-induced climate change, which currently cannot be distinguished from natural climate variability in the historical record. Uncertainties about the amount and rate of change of greenhouse gas emissions also make prediction of the magnitude and timing of climate change difficult. Because of inadequacies in the knowledge and depiction of physical processes and limited computer technology, predictions from existing computer models vary widely, particularly on a regional basis, and are not accurate enough yet for use in policy decisions. The extent of all these uncertainties is such that moving beyond no-regrets measures such as conservation will take political courage and may be delayed until scientific uncertainties are reduced.










ANOTHER LETTER SCIENCE REFUSED TO PUBLISH


“THE NOT SO CLEAR CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGE”



Letter by Dennis Bray submitted to Science on 22 December 2004

http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/bray.html/BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/WedPDFs/Science2.pdf



Title: The Not So Clear Consensus on Climate Change

Author: Dennis Bray

Affiliation: GKSS Forschungszentrum, Geesthacht, Germany



Abstract



One of the most heavily and most publicly contested scientific consensus in the last decade has been in

the debate concerning climate change, namely if it is the result of natural causes or of anthropogenic activity. Using evidence from survey questionnaires distributed among climate scientists, the following suggests that consensus among climate scientists might not be as clear as sometimes depicted.



Scientific consensus seems to be a key word in science to policy transitions, particularly in those cases where uncertainty and risk are high, those issues labeled as post-normal science. [1] One of the most heavily and most publicly contested scientific consensus in the last decade has been in the debate concerning climate change, namely if it is the result of natural causes or of anthropogenic activity. Oreskes [2] claims that evidence suggests that there is indeed a scientific consensus of anthropogenic induced climate change as stated by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Using evidence from survey questionnaires distributed among climate scientists, the following suggests that consensus among climate scientists might not be as clear as depicted by Oreskes. The inset to Oreskes essay suggests that “Without substantial disagreement, scientists find human activities are heating the earth’s surface”. By reviewing 928 abstracts Oreskes concludes that “Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position”. Oreskes goes on to argue that “This analysis shows that scientists publishing in peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the national Academy of Sciences and the public statements of their professional societies. [While on the other hand] Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is not correct [emphasis added].



Oreskes’ main conclusion seems to be that “...there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change”. Results of surveys of climate scientists themselves indicate the possibility that Oreskes’ conclusion is not as obvious as stated.



In the results of a survey of climate scientists conducted in 2003 [3] one question on the survey asked “To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes? A value of 1 indicates “strongly agree” and a value of 7 indicates “strongly disagree”. Countries, and number of responses from each country are as follows:



USA n = 372;

Canada n = 14;

Germany n = 56;

Italy n = 14;

Denmark n = 5;

Netherlands n = 4;

Sweden n = 5;

France n = 5;

U.K. n = 18;

Australia n = 21;

Norway n = 3;

Finland n = 3;

New Zealand n = 6;

Austria n = 3;

Ethiopia n = 1;

South Africa n = 3;

Poland n = 1

Switzerland n = 7;

Mexico n = 3;

Russia n = 1;

Argentina n = 1;

India n = 3;

Spain n = 2

Japan n = 3;

Brazil n = 1;

Taiwan n = 1;

Bulgaria n = 1



To the question posed above there were 530 valid responses. Descriptive statistics are as follows:



Mean = 3.62; Std. Error of mean = .080; Median = 3.00; Std. deviation = 1.84; Variance = 3.386



Frequencies:

1 strongly agree 50 (9.4% of valid responses)

2 134 (25.3% of valid responses)

3 112 (21.1% of valid responses)

4 75 (14.2% of valid responses)

5 45 (8.5% of valid responses)

6 60 (10.8% valid responses)

7 strongly disagree 54 (9.7% of valid responses)



These results, i.e. the mean of 3.62, seem to suggest that consensus is not all that strong and only 9.4% of the respondents “strongly agree” that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes. This is however, a slight rise in consensus of the same survey conducted in 1996 [4] that resulted in a mean of 4.1683 to the same question (Five countries – USA, Canada, Germany, Italy, and Denmark only in 1996 survey, N = 511).



In the 1996 survey only 5.7% of the valid responses “strongly agreed” that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.



In fact, the results of the two surveys even question the Oreskes’ claim that the majority of climate scientists agree with the IPCC, although this has improved somewhat between 1996 and 2003. In the 1996 survey only 8.2% of the valid responses ‘strongly agreed’ with the statement that the IPCC reports accurately reflect the consensus of thought within the scientific community while in 2003 the number rose to 22.8%. While there is

a shift to a greater level of consensus the results however, do not substantiate Oreskes’ claim. Lacking in Oreskes’ approach to analysis is any notion of the dynamics of ‘scientific consensus’.



References

1. Funtowicz, S. and J. Ravetz. 1992 “Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science.” in Krimsky, S. and D. Golding (eds.) Social Theories of Risk London. Praeger 1992.



2. Oreskes, Naomi. “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” Science Vol.306, 3 December 2004 Vol. 1686



3. Bray, D. and Hans von Storch “The Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Change, 2003”



4. Bray, D. and Hans von Storch “The Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Change, 1996”



---------

NOTE: Professor Dennis Bray's letter was submitted to Science in response to the Oreskes essay. It was rejected. In fact, the editors of Science refused to publish any of the numerous letters critical of the Oreskes study. No wonder many readers of Science believe that there is a universal consensus among climate researchers Neither Bray nor von Storch are climate "sceptics" themselves. Indeed, they are vocal critics of global warming "scepticism" in most of its forms and shapes. Nevertheless, both researchers are only too aware that the reality of scepticism is evidently present within the climate science community, and to a degree that is more significant than commonly thought."

[Moochie]

There are more problems with IPCC reports, including that there may be changed to find the conclussions (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1101).


<snip>


NOTE: Professor Dennis Bray's letter was submitted to Science in response to the Oreskes essay. It was rejected. In fact, the editors of Science refused to publish any of the numerous letters critical of the Oreskes study. No wonder many readers of Science believe that there is a universal consensus among climate researchers Neither Bray nor von Storch are climate "sceptics" themselves. Indeed, they are vocal critics of global warming "scepticism" in most of its forms and shapes. Nevertheless, both researchers are only too aware that the reality of scepticism is evidently present within the climate science community, and to a degree that is more significant than commonly thought."


Good stuff, LR. Begs the question, though, why proponents of the global warming being human-caused idea are putting forward this data.

I mean, why? Do you have any ideas?

M.

[fsol]

There are more problems with IPCC reports, including that there may be changed to find the conclussions (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1101) (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1101%29).


About the rebuttals, read the secon link to the end :)
"


http://timlambert.org/2005/05/bray/

Since the survey was anonymous, there is no way to ensure that only climate scientists participated and no way to prevent people from submitting the survey multiple times. Furthermore, the survey was distributed on the climatesceptics list which has over 200 members, almost all of them strongly skeptical about global warming. Since the total number of participants was just 557, this could serious skew the results. I don’t believe that the results of this survey are representative of the views of climate scientists.

Probably not the best way to do a survey.

[Larry Barrieau]

Does anyone know where I can get a DVD of "The Great Global Warming Swindle"?

The DVD for "AIT" is easy to find. I want to show them both to my 7th grade earth science classes.

[Hatchet]

Could some one please explain to me why climate change is such an emotionally charged issue?

My understanding is that the majority of the scientific bodies which have made statements regarding global warming lend support to it being real and that human activity is involved. Not overlooking the latest IPCC which (if the media reports are to be believed) gives a 90% confidence level that humans are contributing to global warming.

In the same way that I can't spend years of my life researching evolution, particle physics or general relativity, at some point I have to put my faith in the scientific method and accept the opinions of the climate scientists.

Could they be wrong? Of course, just like in any other science theories and models can be wrong, but I believe that we always have to act on the best scientific information available at the time and develop appropriate policies, always taking into account any uncertainties.

So why are people so up in arms? I don’t understand because I certainly have no emotional involvement in whether humans are changing the climate or not. But if the science says we are, I want to know so that we can work out solutions.

Why is this cast as a left/right wing conspiracy? (Which IHMO is a false dichotomy and looks a little strange when viewed outside of the US political system). How is this “controversy” any different to the creation/evolution "controversy" or the smoking causes lung cancer "science"?

Perhaps someone can explain to me why I should reject the conclusions of the climate scientists who contributed to the IPCC report and the vast majority of peer reviewed climate articles. Is there some vast conspiracy that I'm unaware of?

Cheers.

[Pipirr]

Why is this cast as a left/right wing conspiracy? (Which IHMO is a false dichotomy and looks a little strange when viewed outside of the US political system). How is this “controversy” any different to the creation/evolution "controversy" or the smoking causes lung cancer "science"?

Perhaps someone can explain to me why I should reject the conclusions of the climate scientists who contributed to the IPCC report and the vast majority of peer reviewed climate articles. Is there some vast conspiracy that I'm unaware of?

Cheers.


It shouldn't have to be a left-right issue, but it is. Wholesale denial of any environment-related issue that may require human intervention to fix has become a shibboleth of the right.

It may have its roots in the close links between business interests and Republican congressmen. Pressure to not regulate CFCs was supported with the idea that the science was unready. Then what could be worse than regulating the CFC industry, causing untold damage to the US economy, all based on a scientist's pet theory? It's in all our interests to wait until there is absolute certainty, before taking action.

As for CO2 emissions and climate change, the same story. Question the science, play up the uncertainty and hold off introducing any regulation on emissions until there is no doubt that it is happening, otherwise it would cause untold damage to the US economy. Chris Mooney makes a persuasive case for this approach in the book 'The Republican War on Science'.

So why Republicans and not Democrats? The GOP has been the party of big business for a long time, and had the advantage of incumbency, so were the primary target for lobbyists. But there's also the twisted end-times point of view, that Jesus is coming back so we don't have worry about the environment. And the christian right is more strongly associated with the Republicans. I don't think it used to always be this way.

There's a lot of irrationality in the debate and a lot of noise obscuring the quality of the science. It's a shame. I sometimes wonder why conservatives aren't more environmentalist, as what could be more conservative than preservation of the forests, or keeping the waterways clean. Think of all the hunting and fishing you could do there with your kids. But you can't say that anymore, as environmental preservation has become a shibboleth of the left.

As for the idea of a vast global conspiracy of scientists, it's laughable. Good data, well collected, that showed something contrary to the IPCC consensus, would be extremely interesting and publishable. If the IPCC consensus were wrong, lots of papers presenting evidence contrary to the consensus would be being published all the time, simply because there are so many researchers in the field gathering data. There is no conspiracy. But there is a consensus, and that deserves our attention.

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

In the same way that I can't spend years of my life researching evolution, particle physics or general relativity, at some point I have to put my faith in the scientific method and accept the opinions of the climate scientists.
Cheers.

Yep. It seems that most people are happy to accept the consensus view of science on pretty much everything except two subjects.

Evolution, and GW...

[BillyJoe]

Hatchet and Pipirr,

What a beautiful summary the two of you have made of this thread.
Perhaps we should stop right here.

[Moochie]

Hatchet and Pipirr,

What a beautiful summary the two of you have made of this thread.
Perhaps we should stop right here.

Ah, trust you to say that, you commie, pinko bustard.

M.

[adler]

My jury is still out, is there some changes in our weather?
I am not a record keeper or scientist, but when I grew up winters in north Michigan were much harsher than now.
We never knew winters like now, We used to shovel trenches from home to garage, it looked like ww1 trench war.
Now you are lucky to get enough snow to ski by thanks giving, and you have a 50/50 chance of having a brown Christmas.
Thunderstorms in January were not even conceived of but now are not uncommon.
This is just what I can observe around me.
This coupled with the obvious decline in many glaciers tells me something has changed, this is not up for debate, you can just observe and see it, if you can not you don't want to.
My unanswered questions are;
1] Is mans use of oil and coal products one of the main causes?
2] If the answer to question one is yes, then my second question is
Will the consequences of further unrestricted use or nonaction result in the catastrophic consequences as put forth by those such as Al Gore?
To say that there is nothing going on is to have your head in a dark smelly place.
As I stated above my jury is still out, I once followed blindly the ranting of people like rush Limbaugh, I stopped short of drinking the Kool-Aid, Now I question things as one should.
Limbaugh and hannity are spin DR. for the right, just as carvile is a spin DR. for the left.
The right says there are many in the science community that do not believe in Global warming, but they never quote or bring them out.
I think this is because they do not dispute that there is a warming but more they dispute the cataclysmic disasters of the warming effects.
Any way IMHO.

[Rrose Selavy]

I don't know if this addition from Randi to the 23 March Swift page has been noted

[As soon as this item appeared here in SWIFT, a huge number of comments poured in from readers who disagreed with my take on the Gore film. Some of these caveats came from persons whose opinions I must consider very carefully, so I take this opportunity of assuring you all that I’m re-examining my position, and will get back here when I’ve considered the matter more fully.]

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Ok as a "denier" (somebody labeled me this way) I can summarize my position this way.

Q:- Is there a Global Warming?
A:- Yes, it is but there are some indicators about it is slowing and maybe it would eventually stop if there are more CO2 on the environment.

Q:- Has it been man made?
A:- The jury is still out. It's hard to separate the facts from the manipulated facts (per example, the manipulation Gore makes about the glaciars retreating. They are doing this since 1800). The consensus is not so consensual and some facts have been ignored.

Q:- It is pollitically manipulated?
A:- Of course it is, from both sides! (It's ridiculous how some people seem to think that only the "denialists" have an agenda)

Q:- Can we, as humans, revert it?
A:- The answer to this is much more difficult. Maybe humans contributed to it but they can't stop it even ceasing all CO2 industrial emissions. Maybe we don't need to have anything to stop it. Maybe we can stop it the other way around (more technology and scientific solutions instead of a plain and simple "reduce CO2 emissions". AGW's models stop at "the small amount of CO2 humans produce contributes to GW". But have they explored the alternatives? What happens to their models with 580 PPM of CO2? 1000 PPM of CO2? What happens if we start to nithrogenyze the soil? If we plant clouds? Maybe all the money Kyoto costs could be directed to explore this!.

Q:- The consecuences of an increased GW will be catastrophic? (I mean 6 more degrees of temperature)
A:- No one knows that. Usually high temperatures were associated to rise in human well-being. The development of the human race has been only possible when we emerged from the age ices. The case for catastrophes a la "Day after tomorrow" is not even closer to be as strong as the case for anthropogenic GW. And the case for AGW is not (as they would like you to believe) as strong as the case for evolution. Namely, the predictive power that Evolution theory has is something that AGW computer models lack completely.

Q:- What is the real costs of the AGW's solution?
A:-Since February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost US$ 317,183,207,286 while potentially saving an undetectable 0.003289307 °C by the year 2050.
Malaria cost US$ 277,897,846,781 in lost GDP and 5,709,297 lives over the same period.

Q:- What's this money worth it ?
A:- Before a conclusive answer to all the questions above can be demonstrated, many think that there are much more importan problems for humans to be solved first.

[Ranillon]

Does anyone know where I can get a DVD of "The Great Global Warming Swindle"?


I don't think you'd be doing your class any favors by showing it. Mind you, this is not because I think it is (at least theoretically) impossible let alone unethical to argue against Global Warming, but because the film is all by itself is a pretty good example of how to distort evidence to come to a predetermined conclusion. The counter-arguments it offers to the general consensus on Global Warming may sound good at first, but are pretty easily debunked or at least shown to be far less impressive once one does some digging.

I am no expert on the subject, but even I could tell the film's basic arguments (you can see them on the show's website -- sorry, no links as I am apparently too new to have the honor of posting any) just don't work. Let me go through them one-by-one to make my point:

1) "A detailed look at recent climate change reveals that the temperature rose prior to 1940 but unexpectedly dropped in the post-war economic boom, when carbon dioxide emissions rose dramatically."

This is a great example of being "deceptive". Yes, temperatures did drop from ~1940 to 1970, but there are two important factors that are missing here. One is that the effects of increased CO2 take time to manifest. So, one wouldn't expect to see temperatures rise step-by-step with emissions of CO2, but rather lag behind. Two, for this period with that extra CO2 also came a lot of extra soot and so forth that actually served in the shorter term to block sunlight. Once better pollution standards were put in place in the 1970s this junk declined as did its effect on received sunlight. Basically, it masked the effects of more greenhouse gases during that period.

2) "There is some evidence to suggest that the rise in carbon dioxide lags behind the temperature rise by 800 years and therefore can't be the cause of it."

I assume this is a reference to the idea that more CO2 comes after warming rather than before. Again, this is slyly deceptive as it assumes that the process of Global Warming always follows the same general process while forgetting that the planet has never faced the situation it is now -- e.g. excess CO2 being generated by industrial civilization. It is true (as best I can tell) that in the past CO2 served as a magifier of other Global Warming effects. That is, once warming got going it caused changes in the environment (such as the melting of permafrost) that released unusually high levels of CO2. However, even this demonstrates that CO2 does have warming effects -- it made lesser warming even worse. And, now with modern industrial society we are artificially pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. So, the mechanism for initially causing Global Warming is different here than in past eras, but then again there is a factor at work never seen before -- us.

3) "If greenhouse warming were happening, then scientists predict that the troposphere (the layer of the earth's atmosphere roughly 10-15km above us) should heat up faster than the surface of the planet, but data collected from satellites and weather balloons doesn't seem to support this."

This is just old data -- the latest readings show that the troposphere is heating up faster.

4) "For some people, the final nail in the coffin of human-produced greenhouse gas theories is the fact that carbon dioxide is produced in far larger quantities by many natural means: human emissions are miniscule in comparison. Volcanic emissions and carbon dioxide from animals, bacteria, decaying vegetation and the ocean outweigh our own production several times over."

Yet again this is deceptive. What drives Global Warming is that the system is getting out of balance in relation to the Earth's ability to process CO2. Absent the effects of man the system naturally equalizes at some constant level depending on the circumstances at the time. By pumping excess CO2 we are setting things out of balance and causing warming. Note that it's not required for us to produce huge amounts in short time frames to have powerful effects over the long term.

This is a bit of a simplication but think of it this way -- if the system can process 100% of all normally generated CO2 in a year, but we humans make sure that 101% is actually generated that extra 1% is not much overall, but it will add up over time. A little can eventually go a long way (think of it as an ecological version of the "miracle of compound interest").

5) "New evidence shows that that as the radiation coming from the sun varies (and sun-spot activity is one way of monitoring this) the earth seems to heat up or cool down. Solar activity very precisely matches the plot of temperature change over the last 100 years. It correlates well with the anomalous post-war temperature dip, when global carbon dioxide levels were rising."

Actually, it doesn't -- or, more to the point, any supposed correlation is so vague and minor that is falls within the range of background noise. It is certainly not as obvious as suggested here.

6) "So how does the sun affect the earth's temperature? The process scientists suggest is that as earth moves through space, the atmosphere is constantly bombarded by ever-present cosmic rays. As these particles hit water vapour evaporating from the oceans, clouds form in the atmosphere. Clouds shield Earth from some of the sun's radiation and have a cooling effect."

This is conjecture masquerading as fact. Basically, there is no meaningful scientific basis for this (at least not yet) -- not to mention it does not so far match the available data on such things.

This answers are based on what I've read casually over the last year. You can read it for yourself just by surfing the web (wikipedia has some good links). The best list of information I've found so far concerning this can be found on the Geek Counterpoint site (great podcast, IMHO) -- again, look it up since I can't post a direct link. In fact, his last podcast was a debunking of the "Great Global Warming Swindle".

[a_unique_person]

Ok as a "denier" (somebody labeled me this way) I can summarize my position this way.

Q:- Is there a Global Warming?
A:- Yes, it is but there are some indicators about it is slowing and maybe it would eventually stop if there are more CO2 on the environment.



It's not slowing. That suggestion by several deniers is a complete misrepresentation of the data.

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2006/dec06/noaa06-094.html



The global annual temperature for combined land and ocean surfaces is expected to be sixth warmest on record for 2006. Some of the largest and most widespread warm anomalies occurred in southern Asia and North America. Canada experienced its warmest winter and warmest spring since its national records began in 1948.
Including 2006, six of the seven warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the ten warmest years have occurred since 1995. The global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6°C and 0.7°C since the start of the 20th Century, and the rate of increase since 1976 has been approximately three times faster than the century-scale trend.



Q:- Has it been man made?
A:- The jury is still out. It's hard to separate the facts from the manipulated facts (per example, the manipulation Gore makes about the glaciars retreating. They are doing this since 1800). The consensus is not so consensual and some facts have been ignored.

Gore is only presenting the data the scientists have referred him to. The glaciers may have been on a slight downward trend since then, the acceleration of that trend in recent years is significant.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=129

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig2-18.gif




Q:- It is pollitically manipulated?
A:- Of course it is, from both sides! (It's ridiculous how some people seem to think that only the "denialists" have an agenda)

It's a political matter, because money is involved. The scientists have no say in that.



Q:- Can we, as humans, revert it?
A:- The answer to this is much more difficult. Maybe humans contributed to it but they can't stop it even ceasing all CO2 industrial emissions. Maybe we don't need to have anything to stop it. Maybe we can stop it the other way around (more technology and scientific solutions instead of a plain and simple "reduce CO2 emissions". AGW's models stop at "the small amount of CO2 humans produce contributes to GW". But have they explored the alternatives? What happens to their models with 580 PPM of CO2? 1000 PPM of CO2? What happens if we start to nithrogenyze the soil? If we plant clouds? Maybe all the money Kyoto costs could be directed to explore this!.

So after years of spoiling any attempt to remedy the situation, the answer is "na na na, it's too late anyway"? I don't know where you get the idea that the models stop at the current levels of CO2.



Q:- The consecuences of an increased GW will be catastrophic? (I mean 6 more degrees of temperature)
A:- No one knows that. Usually high temperatures were associated to rise in human well-being. The development of the human race has been only possible when we emerged from the age ices. The case for catastrophes a la "Day after tomorrow" is not even closer to be as strong as the case for anthropogenic GW. And the case for AGW is not (as they would like you to believe) as strong as the case for evolution. Namely, the predictive power that Evolution theory has is something that AGW computer models lack completely.



The temperature rise projected will be higher than we have had to live with before. That's the whole point, it's going to keep rising for centuries to come.


Q:- What is the real costs of the AGW's solution?
A:-Since February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost US$ 317,183,207,286 while potentially saving an undetectable 0.003289307 °C by the year 2050.
Malaria cost US$ 277,897,846,781 in lost GDP and 5,709,297 lives over the same period.



False dichotomy.


Q:- What's this money worth it ?
A:- Before a conclusive answer to all the questions above can be demonstrated, many think that there are much more importan problems for humans to be solved first.

Science is not about "Conclusive". It is about the as best we can tell using the scientific method. We still have vast areas of knowledge of such basic things as gravity and evolution that we don't know about, for example. The scientists are just passing on a warning, you can close your ears if you want.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

It's not slowing. That suggestion by several deniers is a complete misrepresentation of the data.

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2006/dec06/noaa06-094.html


From the NOAA press note:

". Following the warmest year on record for the globe in 2005, the annual global temperature for 2006 is expected to be sixth warmest since recordkeeping began in 1880."

seems like cooling to me. What did you expect, 5 degress less from one year to another?


Gore is only presenting the data the scientists have referred him to. The glaciers may have been on a slight downward trend since then, the acceleration of that trend in recent years is significant.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=129


A link to realclimate is not complete without a link to http://www.climateaudit.org/ and www.junkscience.com

Gore is only serving his political ambitions.



It's a political matter, because money is involved. The scientists have no say in that.



Sure they don't. But when scientist disagrees with AGW guess what happens?




So after years of spoiling any attempt to remedy the situation, the answer is "na na na, it's too late anyway"? I don't know where you get the idea that the models stop at the current levels of CO2.



Maybe you don't like the most likely answer: The clean air laws could have been one cause of the GW, because the cooling effect of CO2 is somewhat loss.
Where I did say that "it's too late anyway" was the only alternative?
Me and some Nobel prize guy (due his studies in the ozone layer) claims that cloud seeding is a very good solution to GW.




The temperature rise projected will be higher than we have had to live with before. That's the whole point, it's going to keep rising for centuries to come.



That's not so clear and you know it. There are studies and model who shows that at certain levels, CO2 has a cooling effect that can even conduct us to another ice age


False dichotomy.


What is a third option?



Science is not about "Conclusive". It is about the as best we can tell using the scientific method. We still have vast areas of knowledge of such basic things as gravity and evolution that we don't know about, for example. The scientists are just passing on a warning, you can close your ears if you want.

Exactly, is a warning. Even is GW is not human caused humans can reverse it. You don't like the fact that to date computer climate models have not predictive value, don't you?
Would you select one model and predict the temperature in Peru in december 2007?

[a_unique_person]

From the NOAA press note:

". Following the warmest year on record for the globe in 2005, the annual global temperature for 2006 is expected to be sixth warmest since recordkeeping began in 1880."

seems like cooling to me. What did you expect, 5 degress less from one year to another?



No, but the trend is still up. If it wasn't for the massive jump in 1998 in temperature, there wouldn't have been any of this waffle about a cooling phase. If every year we had the jump that 1998 displayed, it would be panic stations right now.



A link to realclimate is not complete without a link to http://www.climateaudit.org/ and www.junkscience.com (http://www.junkscience.com)



I made a claim about glaciers, and you ignore it completely.



Gore is only serving his political ambitions.



Gore has nothing to do with the science.




Sure they don't. But when scientist disagrees with AGW guess what happens?



I don't know? You tell me.



Maybe you don't like the most likely answer: The clean air laws could have been one cause of the GW, because the cooling effect of CO2 is somewhat loss.



That seems to be the latest piece of misinformation doing the rounds. I don't like it because it is so ridiculous.


Where I did say that "it's too late anyway" was the only alternative?
Me and some Nobel prize guy (due his studies in the ozone layer) claims that cloud seeding is a very good solution to GW.








That's not so clear and you know it. There are studies and model who shows that at certain levels, CO2 has a cooling effect that can even conduct us to another ice age



You keep on saying things without presenting any evidence. C02 is a greenhouse gas, it traps heat in the atmosphere.



What is a third option?



Looking after all the problems.




Exactly, is a warning. Even is GW is not human caused humans can reverse it. You don't like the fact that to date computer climate models have not predictive value, don't you?
Would you select one model and predict the temperature in Peru in december 2007?

The models seem to have been pretty good so far. They predicted warming, and it's been warming. They are not going to predict the weather, confusing weather and climate is a common problem.

The changes in rainfall in Australia have been remarkably accurate predictions.

[Glenn]

Does anyone know where I can get a DVD of "The Great Global Warming Swindle"?

The DVD for "AIT" is easy to find. I want to show them both to my 7th grade earth science classes.


Larry, while I understand your thinking, I think that would be a serious disservice to your students. Unless your goal is to discuss massive deception masquerading as science.

Ranillon already covered the "Swindle" very well. I have a few things to add. This is long, but for any skeptics serious about this subject, I think it's worth reading.


Here are some key reasons that we should all be reasonably skeptical about that show (including the fact that the documentarian has been caught boldly lying like this before -- read on):

1. Where's the peer-reviewed science? It's not there. All the peer-reviewed science points incontrovertibly to significant anthropogenic global warming. The few scientists in the documentary who deny this did not publish any peer-reviewed studies or reviews that support their claims of denial. Only if we look up their actual work do we discover this discrepancy. Such deception is easy. Accuracy takes some legwork.


2. Our Baloney Detectors should hit the red when we hear things like paleoclimatologist Professor Ian Clark claiming he "has evidence" showing that warmer spells in the Earth’s history actually came an average of 800 years before the rise in CO2 levels.

Why the red?

Because that's OLD, WIDELY KNOWN information. All climate scientists know this, as does Gore. It was published in Science four years ago. (Almost to the week: March 14th, 2003.)

This is embarrassing. Really. It's like saying, "He has evidence showing that the sun goes through an 11-year sunspot cycle." Cue dramatic music. Cut to commercial. Amaze the woefully uninformed.

Creationists use tactics like this.

Read the actual peer-reviewed literature in Science and elsewhere. Here's the fuller story, in a nutshell: The historical "warmer spells" we're talking about here are periods of ~5,000 years. It is widely known that they do not begin because of increasing CO2. They have other initial causes, for which there are several theories. That initial warming helps release CO2 into the atmosphere, which, along with other greenhouse gases (CH4 and N2O), traps heat and warms the planet much more, creating a feedback loop that dramatically increases and extends the warming. (Yet still none of these historic natural warming periods has come close to the levels or rate of increase we're seeing now -- not even the famous Medieval Warming Period, which many deniers like to reference without noting this key detail.)

This is why Al Gore explains that the process is "complex," while making the broader, accurate point about the relation between CO2 and warming.

None of this is news, to him or to any of the scientists in the relevant fields. For the documentary to falsely suggest this is "new information" reveals that they are hoping their audience is sufficiently ignorant on the whole subject.

And it reveals that the documentarian is either a) ignorant as well, or b) purposely trying to deceive.

Evidence strongly suggests the latter, as we'll see below. (Sneak preview: he's been caught red-handed before.)


3. The show features a couple scientists who have indeed written peer-reviewed papers, but what they say on the show is not actually supported by their own (or anyone else's) peer-reviewed work. This is very misleading -- and purposely so. One major example is Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark, who believes that cosmic rays have a major impact on current global temperature change.

Svensmark is the poster child for "science by press release." While his recent lab experiments do seem to be of some real scientific value, his frenzy of press releases following it were laughable due to their unsubstantiated claims -- none of which appeared in his actual scientific paper about cosmic rays that was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society last year (link to actual paper (http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/%280wgmno454qug3bybibd15345%29/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,9,14;journal,15,139;linkingpublicatio nresults,1:102023,1)). He leapt from promising science to pure speculation, yet the "Swindle" show fails to explain this.

The fact is, cosmic rays have been regularly measured by the neutron monitor at Climax Station (Colorado) since 1953 (see the U.S. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's National Geophysical Data Center (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/ftpcosmicrays.html) for more info), and there has been no long term trend.

Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. Here's a snippet from an article (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/) he wrote explaining why Svensmark's beliefs don't hold water:
Svensmark's paper itself is indeed of some interest. Aerosol processes are among the most uncertain, and most studied, aspects of climate and these experiments (they bombarded a clean mixture of water, SO2, O3 and air with high energy UV and saw small H2SO4 droplets form) might be useful in adding to that field. One could quibble with the use of the high-energy UV (which never penetrates to the lower troposphere), and the high concentrations of SO2 and O3, but by far the biggest problems lie in the study's relevance to the real world atmospheric conditions.

The working hypothesis of the cosmic ray crowd is that the (weak) correlations between low clouds and cosmic rays are causal (i.e. a cosmic ray increase - due to a solar magnetic field weakening - causes low clouds to increase, cooling the planet). The 'spin' on this new paper is that this has been demonstrated, and is significant, and furthermore, is responsible for the 20th Century rise in global temperatures. But let's look carefully at what is required in this logic:

First, the particles observed in these experiments are orders of magnitude too small to be Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN). In the press release, this is why they talk about the 'building blocks' of CCN, however, aggrandisation of these small particles is in no sense guaranteed (Missing step #1). Secondly, the focus is on low clouds over the ocean. However, over the ocean, there are huge numbers of condensation nuclei related to sea salt particles. Thus to show that the cosmic ray mechanism is important, you need to show that it increases CCN even in the presence of lots of other CCN (Missing step #2). Next, even if more CCN were made, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud cover (or optical thickness etc.) (Missing step #3). And given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing - which despite their hand waving, is not at all well quantified (even the sign!) (Missing step #4). Finally, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades - which is tricky, because there hasn't been (see the figure) (Missing step #5). All of this will require significant work and there are certainly no guarantees that all the steps can be verified (which they have been for the greenhouse gas hypothesis) - especially the last! However, they would seem essential to justifying the claims in the press releases.

Will these results be a spur to future research? Possibly. But the ridiculous spin put on this paper is liable to continue to put off mainstream scientists from pursuing it. It's as though Svensmark and co. want to enhance the field of solar-terrestrial research's bad reputation for agenda-driven science.

Unsurprisingly, this paper was trumpeted throughout contrarian circles last week and was received uncritically (with one honorable exception in the 'climatesceptics' discussion group), even by people who normally spend their time decrying science-by-press-release. (A word to the wise, consistency goes a long way to establishing credibility...).

At RealClimate, we've often criticised press releases that we felt gave misleading impressions of the underlying work and lead to confused, and sometimes erroneous, headlines, but this example is by far the most blatant extrapolation-beyond-reasonableness that we've seen. If this group wants to be taken seriously and interact constructively with the rest of the community (which is the only way the 'missing steps' will get sufficient attention), they have to act in a serious manner, be honest about the problems and caveats, and resist the temptation to speculate beyond what is justified.

(If some AWG denier here makes a comment about RealClimate, pay attention to whether they actually discuss the science in the above article.)

If Svensmark ever discovers anything that supports his beliefs that can pass the peer review process, then we should pay attention.

But we are skeptics. We are scientific thinkers. We ought not give much credence to individuals' personal beliefs or opinions, even if they are scientists. That's what the "Swindle" show does, repeatedly.

We should focus on the solid, diverse, peer-reviewed science.

Note that the same is true of Al Gore: he's an excellent starting point, but we should only use him as a launching pad for delving into the solid, diverse, peer-reviewed science. If we pay attention to what Gore actually says, and not some of the mischaracterizations or implications in his documentary, we find he's pretty accurate.


4. The "Swindle" show's claim that some American scientists are all for man-made global warming because they get billions of dollars of research money from the government is patently ridiculous. Do we even have to parse this? Come on.

Especially when on the denial side, The American Enterprise Institute and ExxonMobil are paying scientists to try to debunk anthropogenic global warming. This is the exact same thing that the tobacco industry did to try to cause confusion over whether tobacco causes cancer. Here's the latest:
Exxon linked to climate change pay out

Think tank offers scientists $10,000 to criticize UN study confirming global warming and placing blame on humans.

February 5 2007

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A think tank partly funded by Exxon Mobil sent letters to scientists offering them up to $10,000 to critique findings in a major global warming study released Friday which found that global warming was real and likely caused by burning fossil fuels.

The American Enterprise Institute sent the letters to scientists offering them $10,000, plus travel and other expenses, to highlight the shortcomings in a report from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group widely considered to be the authority on climate change science.

Story continues here: CNN Money story (http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm).
Like the American Enterprise Institute, many of the deniers are politically motivated. Their tactics are very similar to the evolution deniers. Except their fear isn't about religion, it's about their libertarian or conservative political ideologies.

Personally, I don't give a damn about the politics either way. I only care about the science. Let the politically-minded argue about policy -- not science.


5. Here's another massive factual error in the documentary, as reported in The Guardian a couple months ago (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2001694,00.html):
The programme's thesis revolves around the deniers' favourite canard: that the "hockey-stick graph" showing rising global temperatures is based on a statistical mistake made in a paper by the scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes. What it will not be showing is that their results have been repeated several times by other scientists using different statistical methods; that the paper claiming to have exposed the mistake has been comprehensively debunked; and that the lines of evidence used by Mann, Bradley and Hughes are just a few among hundreds demonstrating that 20th-century temperatures were anomalous.It's a tired argument, ranking up there with Creationists' argument that there are no transitional fossils. That this tv show dragged such a stale argument out (without even dusting it off and dolling it up) tells us about their credibility.

If any AGW denier is not already fully familiar with the peer-reviewed science relevant to the work by Mann, Bradley and Hughes, they ought to be.


6. Could solar forcing be the prime force behind global warming?

All the best scientific evidence shows that variations in solar irradiance can only explain a small fraction of global warming. There has been no net increase in solar irradiance over the past several decades, as a study in the Sept. 14, 2006 Nature showed ("Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html)"). Here is the primary conclusion from that peer-reviewed study (emphasis added):
Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years.
There is much more in the scientific literature on this and longer trends, some of which has been discussed earlier so I won't belabor the point.


Lastly (though I could go on):

7. We ought to look at the documentarian himself, to gauge his credibility.

Here's some directly relevant, damning history (from the same Guardian article; emphasis added):
The decision to commission this programme seems even odder when you discover who is making it. In 1997 the director, Martin Durkin, produced a similar series for Channel 4 called Against Nature, which also maintained that global warming was a scam dreamed up by environmentalists. It was riddled with hilarious scientific howlers. More damagingly, the only way in which Durkin could sustain his thesis was to deceive the people he interviewed and edit their answers to change their meaning. After complaints by his interviewees, the Independent Television Commission found that "the views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective editing" and that they had been "misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part". Channel 4 was obliged to broadcast one of the most humiliating primetime apologies it has made. Are institutional memories really so short?
And directly from the source, here's more from what the Independent Television Commission discovered:
Comparison of the unedited and edited transcripts confirmed that the editing of the interviews with [the environmentalists who contributed] had indeed distorted or misrepresented their known views.
Can any honest skeptical thinker still give this show credence, if we honestly care about the truth above all else?


But wait, there's more:

On top of all that, here's the quote from the documentary that really ought to have our hackles up, said by Gary Calder (emphasis added):
I am a science journalist and in my career I have been told by eminent scientists that black holes do not exist and it is impossible that continents move, but in science the experts are usually wrong.
Yes, scientists are wrong about things at times... but the experts in their fields are "usually" wrong?! If this guy's a science journalist, he's a moron. The irony of course is that the last lingering deniers of plate tectonics are in a way analogous to the deniers of anthropogenic global warming.


I am certain that many people without well-honed critical thinking skills -- or without much interest or time to do their own research -- will give this documentary a cursory glance and find that it supports the conclusion that significant anthropogenic global warming is not scientifically proven. I hope these people take the time to follow up carefully, and read the peer-reviewed science.

Because if they do, they will realize: a) the show is bunk, and b) that there's very good reason to accept the overwhelming peer-reviewed science -- from many disparate scientific fields -- that supports significant AGW is happening.



Re Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth:

Just as a quick follow-up about the thread subject, here are some quotes from scientists about Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth. This is from a recent NY Times article that had a number of major errors, which have been debunked in many sources, but here are the relevant parts about Gore getting the bottom line of AGW right:He [Gore] clearly has supporters among leading scientists, who commend his popularizations and call his science basically sound. In December, he spoke in San Francisco to the American Geophysical Union and got a reception fit for a rock star from thousands of attendees.

“He has credibility in this community,” said Tim Killeen, the group’s president and director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a top group studying climate change. “There’s no question he’s read a lot and is able to respond in a very effective way.”

Some backers concede minor inaccuracies but see them as reasonable for a politician. James E. Hansen, an environmental scientist, director of NASA (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_aeronautics_and_space_administration/index.html?inline=nyt-org)’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a top adviser to Mr. Gore, said, “Al does an exceptionally good job of seeing the forest for the trees,” adding that Mr. Gore often did so “better than scientists.”

Still, Dr. Hansen said, the former vice president’s work may hold “imperfections” and “technical flaws.” He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States.

“We need to be more careful in describing the hurricane story than he is,” Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Gore. “On the other hand,” Dr. Hansen said, “he has the bottom line right: most storms, at least those driven by the latent heat of vaporization, will tend to be stronger, or have the potential to be stronger, in a warmer climate.”

[...]

Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton who advised Mr. Gore on the book and movie, said that reasonable scientists disagreed on the malaria issue and other points that the critics had raised. In general, he said, Mr. Gore had distinguished himself for integrity.

“On balance, he did quite well — a credible and entertaining job on a difficult subject,” Dr. Oppenheimer said. “For that, he deserves a lot of credit. If you rake him over the coals, you’re going to find people who disagree. But in terms of the big picture, he got it right.”

I'll conclude with a 3/20/07 letter to the NY Times from the president-elect of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which was a response to the aforementioned misinformation found elsewhere in that article:
The National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorology Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements stating that climate change is: a) occurring, b) largely caused by humans and c) likely to continue with large negative consequences for natural and human socioeconomic systems unless we rapidly decarbonize our global energy systems.

People who have evidence that contradicts these statements can publish their findings in scientific journals, after which the public might expect to see this work discussed in Science Times. In the meantime, if you feel obligated to publish what are simply opinions, please use the opinion pages rather than the science section.

James J. McCarthy
Cambridge, Mass.
The writer is the president-elect of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Anyone who still wants to argue against AGW ought to reread the second paragraph in McCarthy's letter.

Everything else is opinion or obfuscation.

We skeptics ought to know this.

[fls]

I highly doubt that Randi would accept Gore's video as proof-positive. I am pretty sure that what Randi is accepting is the consensus view of experts, and what Randi appreciates is that Gore is acting as a statesman by dedicating himself to presenting this information.

Linda

Hmmm....it turns out that I was wrong.

Linda

[Glenn]

Linda: Yep, and it's a real shame. Today is a dark day in the world of skepticism.

I write this with serious misgivings, because of the enormous love and respect I feel for Randi. However, as I know he appreciates, facts are more important than any such emotions, and I feel a duty to critique the statements of even a hero of mine when they are so clearly flawed.

It is today's SWIFT, not last week's, that will embarrass Randi and possibly harm his credibility to some degree until he corrects it. Without doing the necessary research (as he admitted) on the "Great Global Warming Swindle" tv show, he touted it as "worth the investment of time" -- without noting its many serious errors. Why would a skeptical thinker do such a thing without first verifying if it is worthy of such an endorsement? It is not. He gave a well-debunked piece of junk a stamp of approval.

Another problem with today's SWIFT is this curious statement:

"I do not see, from my now somewhat better-informed perspective, and even judging from the smog I have personally experienced over many major cities across the world, the science behind a claim that humans – alone – are causing global climate change.".
Randi: Who has claimed that "humans – alone – are causing global climate change"? Al Gore certainly has not.

That is a textbook straw man argument.

From the Amazing Randi.

Wow.

Disappointing.

And, frankly, well, amazing.

But perhaps he didn't mean to word it that way.

In the SWIFT piece he refers several times to what Gore says, as if he's alone, as if Gore's explaining things that many hundreds of scientists and peer-reviewed journals haven't already elucidated. It sounds suspiciously like he got pressured by people who have a beef with Gore, perhaps for political reasons. It is unfortunate that he pinned things on Gore in SWIFT rather than the scientists whose work he's describing, suggesting that the major points Gore makes are his own. They are not. The connection between CO2 and global warming is hardly something Gore is inventing; it is quite compelling science. A shame and a disservice to Randi's readers that he inaccurately suggested otherwise.

Michael Shermer dealt with a deluge of angry letter writers when he first wrote in Scientific American that he'd finally been convinced of anthropogenic global warming. It is unfortunate that Randi has had to endure that same irrational onslaught this past week. The difference of course is that Michael did -- and continues to do -- the requisite research, and has found the science compelling. Randi was caught thoroughly off-guard after making a fair statement based on seeing An Inconvenient Truth.

I trust he will change his stance again once he has done more thorough research. As we know, Randi has no ego, he only cares about being accurate, and eventually he will be on this.

[a_unique_person]

That's what amazes me. Where does this onslaught come from, and why?



"...the chief end I propose to myself in all my labours is to vex the world rather than divert it." - Jonathan Swift



Many people have been vexed by this issue.

[BillyJoe]

Good grief!

Some months ago we had Randi cheating like a school boy,
now we have him fluttering about like a leaf in the wind.
I'm no longer upset, I'm just feeling sad.

What are we to do with him?

regards,
BillyJoe

[Pipirr]

Good grief!

Some months ago we had Randi cheating like a school boy,
now we have him fluttering about like a leaf in the wind.
I'm no longer upset, I'm just feeling sad.

What are we to do with him?

regards,
BillyJoe

"Feverishly hamering out comments" may have the desired effect. The guy was hit with an onslaught of anti-AGW woo following last week's Swift, and apparently one week has not been long enough to identify that "The Great Global Warming Swindle", for example, is a pack of lies and misdirection.

Another week, another mea culpa?

[Larry Barrieau]

Thanks for the input. I will show both videos if I can get them.

It appears that both sides can show weaknesses in the other. It will be a good lesson for them to look at both sides and see which they favor. They, like most of us, can't possibly read and understand all of the citations for each side, but they can listen to each show and decide which seems more plausible. Each presentation is obviously meant to reach the majority of people most of whom (I believe.) will not look beyond the video for more information. The kind of scrutiny the videos get on this board is not what most people will do.

After they see them I will tell them of some of the basic disagreements but I won't have the time to go into any detail.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

You can get the Swindle in www.junkscience.com

[Glenn]

It will be a good lesson for them to look at both sides and see which they favor. They, like most of us, can't possibly read and understand all of the citations for each side, but they can listen to each show and decide which seems more plausible.


Larry,

That would be a fine idea if it were a debate class, or a documentary class.

But if you'll forgive my bluntness, I think it's a terrible idea for a science class. Here's why:

In science the last thing you want to teach them is that the way to come to a conclusion about something scientific is to watch lay documentaries and decide whose argument looks and sounds better. And then tell them hey, nobody's really going to look up the facts, so this is the best we can do. Heck, not even I, your teacher, am taking the time to research this very seriously.

No, not in a science class.

Seriously, what can they possibly learn about scientific thinking from that lesson? How can they judge that, say, the 800 year lag is actually well known and already accounted for (despite Swindle's claims), or that Svensmark's cosmic ray claims are not supported by any peer-reviewed data, not even his own (despite Swindle's claims, as I remember them), or that the "hockey stick" is not flawed as was once thought (despite Swindle's claims), etc.? By how well the speakers speak?

Your statement that "both sides can show weaknesses in the other" reveals that you yourself don't know much about the relevant peer-reviewed science. It's true, as you say, that it's difficult to do the research. It requires a great deal of intense, critical reading, and much of it is technical. But enough is understandable that any intelligent person can wade through it.

If you don't do the research, if you suggest to your 7th graders that the "Swindle" show is anything but a slick swindle itself, then perhaps it'd be best if you don't do this lesson with the students. You run the risk of misinforming them, by even suggesting that these two productions are of similar scientific credibility.

For the children. (That works better if you imagine it in Chef's voice.)

[Larry Barrieau]

Glenn,
I'm not going to tell them that nobody's ever going to look up the facts. I'm going to show them the videos, ask them what they thought, and then tell them my take on it: That there is global warming, that I believe it to be a combination of natural and manmade but to what extent of each I don't know, that we should be trying to reduce pollution and use alternative energy sources.

I'm sure you are not saying that everything in AIT is without flaw and that everything in TTGWS is completly wrong. Seemingly intelligent people on this forum can't agree on all the points in the videos nor can the scientists. I'm not trying to make them aware of all the minutia of this debate, I just want them to think, and to realize that in science there is often opposing and contentious debate and that science, if properly performed, will lead toward the truth.

You are right though, I don't have the time or the interest to read every link provided and search through every footnote. I have one or two days to discuss global warming with only 45 min. per day. The videos will be shown during study periods.

[Brian the Snail]

Thanks for the input. I will show both videos if I can get them.

It appears that both sides can show weaknesses in the other. It will be a good lesson for them to look at both sides and see which they favor. They, like most of us, can't possibly read and understand all of the citations for each side, but they can listen to each show and decide which seems more plausible. Each presentation is obviously meant to reach the majority of people most of whom (I believe.) will not look beyond the video for more information. The kind of scrutiny the videos get on this board is not what most people will do.

After they see them I will tell them of some of the basic disagreements but I won't have the time to go into any detail.

I posted a link to this thread earlier, but you may have missed it:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76595

Please, read through the whole thread and follow the links. Whatever the merits or otherwise of "An Inconvenient Truth", IMO you should not be showing the "Swindle" documentary to anybody. Quite simply, it's a pack of lies. If you're worried about "balance" then it'd be far better to not show either than to risk misleading your students so egregiously.

[Pipirr]

It appears that both sides can show weaknesses in the other. It will be a good lesson for them to look at both sides and see which they favor. They, like most of us, can't possibly read and understand all of the citations for each side, but they can listen to each show and decide which seems more plausible. Each presentation is obviously meant to reach the majority of people most of whom (I believe.) will not look beyond the video for more information. The kind of scrutiny the videos get on this board is not what most people will do.

After they see them I will tell them of some of the basic disagreements but I won't have the time to go into any detail.

"Decide which seems more plausible": you could also say "decide which fits most comfortably with their confirmation bias". Be that bias left, right, Al Gore hating, change fearing, or whatever.

The Swindle movie is just plain wrong. It's not the other side of the debate, it's just wrong. Showing both movies to let them make up there own minds sounds great on the face of it, but it would be like showing something from the Discovery Institute in favor of creationism, alongside a documentary on evolution.

People hear what they want to hear, and the AGW message is not a popular, pleasant message. If there is an out, people want to take it. If there is uncertainty in AGW, they cling on to it. And if a documentary like Swindle comes along and tells them it's all a big lie, it's a mental lifesaver.

Randi's mea culpa this week points out the strength of feeling in the debate, and the noise around it. There is a lot of information to digest, but also a heck of a lot of misinformation to filter out. One week was not enough for Randi to get on top of it, just like it wasn't enough for the kids in this grade 7 class (http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?ID=15357).

With respect, I don't think that your students would be well served by your giving equal time to the overwhelming scientific consensus, and to the lies and misinformation of the charlatan behind Swindle.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

The denialists have had quite some interesting points in the pasts:
- They didn't believe the UN panel which, back in the 70's proclamanted the urgence about a man-made new and upcoming ice age.
-They didn't buy the stupid ban in DDT (a harmless producto wich killed mosquitos). The ban efectivelly increased the deaths due to malaria and Denge.
-They didn't buy the massive press about the Ozone layer problem.

Now, computer models (none of them could accurately predict that 2006 will be cooler than 2005) are used tu run simulations whose only result is that the earth will be warmer over time. No other articles or information hit the media as they should :

http://www.john-daly.com/cooling.htm
http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html
http://www.crosstabs.org/blogs/joliphant/2007/mar/21/its_global_cooling_again_or_maybe_there_are_skepti cs
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N3/C1.jsp

wonder if you see that on the media?

[Brian the Snail]

- They didn't believe the UN panel which, back in the 70's proclamanted the urgence about a man-made new and upcoming ice age.

Which "UN panel" was this? Certainly not the IPCC, which was established in 1988.

[Moochie]

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=3]
Larry, while I understand your thinking, I think that would be a serious disservice to your students. Unless your goal is to discuss massive deception masquerading as science.

Ranillon already covered the "Swindle" very well. I have a few things to add. This is long, but for any skeptics serious about this subject, I think it's worth reading.

<snip>




A very good post, sir.

I am not a scientist, nor am I well positioned to evaluate the scientific literature that might confirm or debunk what I think about the matter of global warming.

And there's the nub: who wins in the arena of public opinion? I haven't seen any of the films being discussed here, and truthfully, I don't think I need to.

From my vantage point here in Australia, I can say that most of the media "noise," and I mean all media, is generally on the side of the science that says we'd better take notice and do something about the problem of global warming.

Persons of a skeptical bent -- and there are more than we would generally think -- look at not only what is being said, but who is doing the saying. To some of us, at least, it seems fairly evident that the "deniers" have a pecuniary interest in pushing their opinions, whereas one is mystified by the the other side, for it is far more difficult to detect an ulterior motive there, at least one that has been spelled out in the public arena.

So, I am not too concerned by the attendant hubbub surrounding this debate. It seems both here and elsewhere good minds are working toward ways in which we can all participate in making our planet an environment fit for the perpetuation of all living things.

Indeed, if you go to www.smartdiaper.com you will see how some brilliant minds are developing a diaper that will not only keep the wearer comfortable and dry, but also neutralize any and all offending gasses, turning them into harmless air. A prototype of these diapers, which people of any age can wear, is due to be released to selected stores in the U.S. and Europe on 4/1/2007.

M.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Your link goes to a domain for sale page.

[varwoche]

http://www.john-daly.com/cooling.htm
http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html
http://www.crosstabs.org/blogs/joliphant/2007/mar/21/its_global_cooling_again_or_maybe_there_are_skepti cs
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N3/C1.jsp
wonder if you see that on the media? This is in reply to not only the above post, but to virtually every post of yours on the topic of GW.

For once, how about citing some peer-reviewed scientific studies, as opposed to blogs written by random bozos, authors of bad fiction, Exxon funded stooges, libertarian free market advocates, op-ed pieces, etc.?

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

The links are right there, but to better serve you:
"Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics 95, 115-121 (2007)
"Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years"
Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian. The School of Geographic Sciences, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, P. R. China
Full article at http://www.springerlink.com/content/g28u12g2617j5021/fulltext.pdf"
Also, It would be good that the IPCC make their data and articles available don't you think?

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640#more-640


This is in reply to not only the above post, but to virtually every post of yours on the topic of GW.

For once, how about citing some peer-reviewed scientific studies, as opposed to blogs written by random bozos, authors of bad fiction, Exxon funded stooges, libertarian free market advocates, op-ed pieces, etc.?

[Pipirr]

Lin Zhen-Shan1 and Sun Xian1(1) The School of Geographic Sciences, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, P. R. China


Received: 2 May 2005 Revised: 24 October 2005 Accepted: 6 April 2006 Published online: 31 July 2006

Summary

A novel multi-timescale analysis method, Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), is used to diagnose the variation of the annual mean temperature data of the global, Northern Hemisphere (NH) and China from 1881 to 2002. The results show that: (1) Temperature can be completely decomposed into four timescales quasi-periodic oscillations including an ENSO-like mode, a 6–8-year signal, a 20-year signal and a 60-year signal, as well as a trend. With each contributing ration of the quasi-periodicity discussed, the trend and the 60-year timescale oscillation of temperature variation are the most prominent. (2) It has been noticed that whether on century-scale or 60-year scales, the global temperature tends to descend in the coming 20 years. (3) On quasi 60-year timescale, temperature abrupt changes in China precede those in the global and NH, which provides a denotation for global climate changes. Signs also show a drop in temperature in China on century scale in the next 20 years. (4) The dominant contribution of CO2 concentration to global temperature variation is the trend. However, its influence weight on global temperature variation accounts for no more than 40.19%, smaller than those of the natural climate changes on the rest four timescales. Despite the increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration, the patterns of 20-year and 60-year oscillation of global temperature are all in falling. Therefore, if CO2 concentration remains constant at present, the CO2 greenhouse effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate in the following 20 years. Even though the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to re-consider the trend of global climate changes.

Abstract quoted in full.

[Fredrik]

It is today's SWIFT, not last week's, that will embarrass Randi and possibly harm his credibility to some degree until he corrects it. Without doing the necessary research (as he admitted) on the "Great Global Warming Swindle" tv show, he touted it as "worth the investment of time" -- without noting its many serious errors. Why would a skeptical thinker do such a thing without first verifying if it is worthy of such an endorsement? It is not. He gave a well-debunked piece of junk a stamp of approval.


The guy was hit with an onslaught of anti-AGW woo following last week's Swift, and apparently one week has not been long enough to identify that "The Great Global Warming Swindle", for example, is a pack of lies and misdirection.

Another week, another mea culpa?


If this week was "mea somewhat culpa", then next week will probably be "mea very culpa". I wonder if he watched any part of that show at all. This is what it says during the first 1 minute and 9 seconds:

THE ICE IS MELTING
THE SEA IS RISING
HURRICANES ARE BLOWING
AND IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT
SCARED?
DON'T BE
IT'S NOT TRUE

"We image that we live in an age of reason, and the global warming alarm is dressed up as science, but it's not science. It's propaganda."

"There's no direct evidence which links 20th century global warming to anthropogenic greenhouse gases."

"We've just been told lies, that's what it comes down to."

"We can't say that CO2 will drive climate. It certainly never did in the past."

"If the CO2 increases in the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas, then the temperature will go up, but the ice core record shows exactly the opposite! So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption, of the whole theory of climate change, due to humans, is shown to be wrong."

"The whole thing stinks."

I don't understand how this could get past Randi's BS detector.

[fsol]

My favorite part of the show is at the beginning when they go on about "if you criticse the global warming people, even with rigourous science, then they belittle you, or ignore you". Well it was something like that...I watched it a while ago, I've been to the pub...

They then spend the next hour and a half lying about and misprepresenting the science of climate change. And in fact not actually demonstrating any rigourous scientific rebuttal of the consensus at all. It must take some big balls to be quite so blatent. Well either that, or a big fat paycheck.

[a_unique_person]

The denialists have had quite some interesting points in the pasts:
- They didn't believe the UN panel which, back in the 70's proclamanted the urgence about a man-made new and upcoming ice age.
-They didn't buy the stupid ban in DDT (a harmless producto wich killed mosquitos). The ban efectivelly increased the deaths due to malaria and Denge.
-They didn't buy the massive press about the Ozone layer problem.

Now, computer models (none of them could accurately predict that 2006 will be cooler than 2005) are used tu run simulations whose only result is that the earth will be warmer over time. No other articles or information hit the media as they should :

http://www.john-daly.com/cooling.htm
http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html
http://www.crosstabs.org/blogs/joliphant/2007/mar/21/its_global_cooling_again_or_maybe_there_are_skepti cs
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N3/C1.jsp

wonder if you see that on the media?

They can't predict year by year temperature changes, and it was never claimed that they could. Can you just understand a few, very basic, facts about what the models can and can't do. No one has ever claimed they could predict year by year changes, so stop saying they can't. You aren't debating a point with anyone. If you look at the model validation runs against known climate, they don't track accurately year by year, at all. They track the general trend of several years, however.

[Glenn]

I'm sure you are not saying that everything in AIT is without flaw and that everything in TTGWS is completly wrong.
Hi Larry,

The point is they are not even remotely of equal credibility. Yes, there are some minor details in AIT that serious scientists can reasonably quibble with, but none of the major points. Yes, there are a few things that AIT seems to imply that sound hyperbolic, but only if you're not paying close attention. E.g., many critics of AIT argue that Gore is way off when he says sea levels will rise by as much as 18-20 feet, contradicting the newest IPCC report which, while admittedly conservative, only predicts a sea level rise of 7-23 inches. Sounds pretty damning, huh? But it's a complete mischaracterization of what Gore actually says.

First, Gore never says that "will" happen, he says it could (keep reading). Second, the IPCC report predicts a 7-23 inch rise within this century, then continuing long afterward. Gore doesn't restrict his point to any timeline. Already we're not comparing apples to apples. But third -- and this is the key -- Gore was specifically talking about what would happen if the West Antarctic ice shelf "melted or slipped off its island moorings into the sea," or if the Greenland ice sheet "melted or broke up and slipped into the sea." He was not talking about the base estimates of rising sea level from steady global warming-related causes (viz., thermal expansion, glacial and ice cap melt [not including Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets], and steady [non-dynamic] ice sheet contraction), which was what the latest IPCC report limited itself to. He was talking about the additional flooding that would likely be caused by dynamic Greenland and/or West Antarctic ice sheet melt-off.

And despite some criticisms to the contrary, he actually underplayed it. In a side note, the new IPCC report estimates that if Greenland's ice sheet fully melted, it would add "a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m" -- or ~23 feet.

And that's just Greenland. If the West Antarctic Ice Sheet were to break off and melt, it is estimated sea levels would rise by about 4-7 meters. In his book An Inconvenient Truth, Gore explains: "If Greenland melted or broke up and slipped into the sea--or if half of Greenland and half of Antarctica melted or broke up and slipped into the sea, sea levels worldwide would increase by between 18 and 20 feet." He was not exaggerating at all.

Only people who watch the images in AIT flash by, without really listening to Gore's words, will come away with the impression that he exaggerated.

Note also that the IPCC report did not take into account more recent data that suggests the ice sheets may be more vulnerable than previously thought. The cut-off for the IPCC was May 2006, but read the Jan '07 NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies brief entitled Sea Level Rise, After the Ice Melted and Today (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/), which states (emphasis added): "Recent observations of Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet raise concerns for the future. Satellites detect a thinning of parts of the Greenland Ice Sheet at lower elevations, and glaciers are disgorging ice into the ocean more rapidly, adding 0.23 to 0.57 mm/yr to the sea within the last decade. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also showing some signs of thinning. Either ice sheet, if melted completely, contains enough ice to raise sea level by 5-7 m. A global temperature rise of 2-5°C might destabilize Greenland irreversibly. Such a temperature rise lies within the range of several future climate projections for the 21st century. However, any significant meltdown would take many centuries."

That backs Gore up pretty well.

BTW: It's worth noting that a much higher base sea level rise forecast was given in the journal Science, just on 1/19/07 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5810/368): 20 to 55 inches within this century, as compared to the IPCC's admittedly conservative 7 to 23 inches.


In comparison, the GGWS gets most of its major points wrong -- as already noted by me and others, with references. And don't gloss over the fact that the filmmaker, Durkin, has been caught red-handed actively deceiving on this very topic in the past. Not innocently exaggerating, but outright re-editing interviews to change their meanings, to the point that interviewees complained and Channel 4 had to apologize.

Knowing Randi, he's continuing to research this very carefully and I'm confident he'll discover more reasons to mistrust Durkin and his Swindle tactics. For the sake of your students, I think you'll be glad if you do some more research.

I'm not trying to make them aware of all the minutia of this debate, I just want them to think, and to realize that in science there is often opposing and contentious debate and that science, if properly performed, will lead toward the truth.


Yes, an excellent lesson, but in order to teach it, you can't give them one thing based fairly solidly on good science, and another based fairly solidly on deception. If you want to teach them about contentious debate in science, give them opposing scientific views. Not a snow job. (There's a warming pun in there somewhere, but I'm tired.)

Remember that one of the speakers in the Swindle show says, "in science the experts are usually wrong." Probably not the anti-science message you want for a science class.


Lucifuge Rofocale:

When you say...

They didn't believe the UN panel which, back in the 70's proclamanted the urgence about a man-made new and upcoming ice age.


...are you joking around or are you honestly unaware of the false analogy?

1. As Brian the Snail already pointed out, the UN panel didn't exist in the 70s to "proclaim" anything. Were you not aware of this?

2. While there were several doom-and-gloom climate predictions made in the 60s-70s, not a single one had anywhere near the overwhelming amount of solid, peer-reviewed data that evidences AGW. Are you unaware of the great diversity of scientific fields that all point to the same basic conclusions, and that this was not the case in the 70s?

No worry if you weren't, just making sure.

[BillyJoe]

Ah, trust you to say that, you commie, pinko bustard.Why, thank you Moochie. :)

[Ichneumonwasp]

I am thoroughly confused by this "debate". I do not understand the point behind the "deniers". Is the issue that we do not know for sure, with absolute undeniable certainty, that global warming is partially caused by human intervention? Is the issue that there are economic repercussions that follow that idea? Is the issue that Al Gore is a Democrat and those evil liberals are evil liberals? What is the point?

I have yet to hear anyone claim that man is the sole and only cause of global warming, but that there is good evidence that we contribute to it. Are we debating petty percentages?

I am thoroughly dismayed by the economic argument. The history of our economic life has been one of increasing material wealth with the introduction of new and better energy sources. We have risen from slave owning societies to industrial powers by the simple transformation of energy source. We now know of energy sources that are much more powerful than the fossil fuels that we currently use and which do not pollute the environment in the same way. What could possibly motivate anyone to argue against a change to alternative sources of energy? Why shouldn't we pour money after solar cells that are cheap and effective? Because there are other problems that we need to solve? Solve the power issue, and the other problems disappear. How much easier would the expansion of technology in the third world become with unlimited and relatively cheap power sources? How much easier would new irrigation systems for farming and improvements in drinking water become in the third world if the power issue were solved? How much easier the potential eradication of disease? And the economic benefits to the countries and individuals that create these new technologies? Absolutely staggering. They would make Bill Gates look like a pauper.

Let us suppose that one fallout from our research into this issue is a new understanding of the complex process by which the earth regulates its temperature. How do we lose in the process? Suppose that we learn how to buffer CO2 and methane emissions through novel means because we fear that higher levels of these gases will affect the environment. How do we lose if we gain that power? Suppose we actually learn how to regulate our own environment? The impact for us and for our eventual branching out to new planets would be staggering.

Is this just pedantry gone wild, the denial of AGW, or is it driven by some weird misunderstanding of the ways that we can benefit from the debate? I simply do not understand why there is much to debate. I agree with Shermer. I think it is time to act. I don't see how we lose from the increased knowledge that is sure to fall out.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Wow!

What religious this thread has become.

Its because the theme is somehow religious?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440869&in_page_id=1965
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Spencer/so_now_we_are_holocaust_deniers.html
"As part of the current media frenzy over the “imminent demise” of Planet Earth from global warming, it has become fashionable to demonize global warming skeptics through a variety of tactics. This has recently been accomplished by comparing scientists who don’t believe in a global climate catastrophe to “flat-Earthers,” those who denied cigarettes cause cancer, or even those who deny the Holocaust. It is interesting that it is not the scientists who are making the comparisons to Holocaust-deniers, but members of the media. "
But, why is this debate that pasionate?
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Why_has_global_warming.pdf

Many participants insisted about the supposed scientifical consensus about this GW issue, but, is this consensus real?

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/08/25/globalcooling.shtml
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Lindzen/no_consensus.html

"So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.

First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists -- especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce -- if we're lucky.
Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT."

Benny Peiser has now posted the Oreskes abstracts:


"Update: The Oreskes abstracts


Naomi Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI Web of Knowledge database (1993 – 2003) using the keywords "global climate change." However, this claim is incorrect: while the ISI database includes a total of 929 documents for the period in question, it lists only 905 abstracts. It is thus impossible that Oreskes analysed 928 abstracts.



In my original critique, I used the same ISI database and the same key words as Oreskes but used all documents listed therein. While Oreskes did not specify the method she applied in her study, she later confirmed that she had limited her search to “articles”, while I included “all document types” in my initial assessment. This difference appears to explain the discrepancy between the “928” abstracts Oreskes claims to have analysed and the 1117 documents I found and considered, although her figures don’t add up, one way or another.



Some commentators have argued that these differences undermine my main criticism while they validate Oreskes' claim. However, as I have stressed repeatedly, Oreskes entire argument is flawed as the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that explicitly endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.'



In fact, the vast majority of abstracts do not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover - and despite attempts to deny this fact - a few abstracts actually doubt the view that human activities are the main driving force of "the observed warming over the last 50 years.” Abstracts like these ones:

L.C. Gerhard and B.M. Hanson: Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues: Annual report

AAPG BULLETIN 84 (4) 2000: 466-471

The AAPG Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues has studied the supposition of human-induced climate change since the committee's inception in January 1998. This paper details the progress and findings of the committee through June 1999, At that time there had been essentially no geologic input into the global climate change debate.

The following statements reflect the current state of climate knowledge from the geologic perspective as interpreted by the majority of the committee membership. The committee recognizes that new data could change its conclusions, The earth's climate is constantly changing owing to natural variability in earth processes. Natural climate variability over recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time.


M.E. Fernau, W.J. Makofske, D.W. South. REVIEW AND IMPACTS OF CLIMATE-CHANGE

UNCERTAINTIES FUTURES 25 (8) 1993

This article examines the status of the scientific uncertainties in predicting and verifying global climate change that hinder aggressive policy making. More and better measurements and statistical techniques are needed to detect and confirm the existence of greenhouse-gas-induced climate change, which currently cannot be distinguished from natural climate variability in the historical record…. "

So Oreskes is lying when she saids that:
“Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”

Thus the IPCC data doesn't reflect a consensus as falsely the above posters have said.

It even could mean that there are lots of scietific positions in favor of a global cooling:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/peer-reviewed-global-cooling.html

And go back to the end of page 5 and read the Peer reviewed study Wavroche asked me to post.

And also, why nobody touches the subject of the errors in the IPCC reports?

http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=13&idContribution=444&PHPSESSID=7b6415c4d679d6df5c28f395d03c416e

Maybe because the subject is mostly political (despite previous suggestions about supposed "strictly scientific criteria)?

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Pielke_Jr/PielkeTestimony30Jan07.pdf

Before we have passed for this same scenario of inminent doom , just in the opposite direction:

http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html

Read this carefully and compare:

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/NEWSWEEK/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/FireandIce.pdf

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/INHOFE/Hot_and_Cold_Media.pdf

I'm sure they don't ignore that you can get your favorite trend from the avilable data?

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Massen/sea_ice_extent_favourite_trend.html
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2006/03/grace_puzzle.php
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2005/00000051/00000175/art00001
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/20/what-do-we-know-about-clouds/
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Gray/Influence_of_Solar_Changes_HCTN_62.pdf


Everybody seems to defend the "science" on Gore´s movie, but is that so?

http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response-book.cfm
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Monckton/gore_gored.pdf

So maybe the rumors of the inminent apocalypse are greatly exagerated?

http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/20/2/2/1

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc042501.html
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Monckton/apocalypse_cancelled.pdf

Also, Kyoto is useless. That's the crux of the problem.
Assuming for the sake of argument (wich is not the case, but let's say it's true) that this GW crisis is man made and that we are not entering in a new Ice Age, Kyoto solution is useless!
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm072998.html
http://www.junkscience.com/news/singer14.html

We would be better served with a plan B:

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=157525

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

The point is that the costs of the proposed "solution is not trivial:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.html
And is also useless!

And that maybe we would need more CO2 instead of less to survive a new ice age (read the PEER REVIEWED paper at the end of page 5 in this thread)

If the point is about pollution we agree, we need more nuclear plants and reduce SMOG to have better air and less respiratory diseases. But that's not the point of the ecofascists.




I am thoroughly confused by this "debate". I do not understand the point behind the "deniers". Is the issue that we do not know for sure, with absolute undeniable certainty, that global warming is partially caused by human intervention? Is the issue that there are economic repercussions that follow that idea? Is the issue that Al Gore is a Democrat and those evil liberals are evil liberals? What is the point?

I have yet to hear anyone claim that man is the sole and only cause of global warming, but that there is good evidence that we contribute to it. Are we debating petty percentages?

I am thoroughly dismayed by the economic argument. The history of our economic life has been one of increasing material wealth with the introduction of new and better energy sources. We have risen from slave owning societies to industrial powers by the simple transformation of energy source. We now know of energy sources that are much more powerful than the fossil fuels that we currently use and which do not pollute the environment in the same way. What could possibly motivate anyone to argue against a change to alternative sources of energy? Why shouldn't we pour money after solar cells that are cheap and effective? Because there are other problems that we need to solve? Solve the power issue, and the other problems disappear. How much easier would the expansion of technology in the third world become with unlimited and relatively cheap power sources? How much easier would new irrigation systems for farming and improvements in drinking water become in the third world if the power issue were solved? How much easier the potential eradication of disease? And the economic benefits to the countries and individuals that create these new technologies? Absolutely staggering. They would make Bill Gates look like a pauper.

Let us suppose that one fallout from our research into this issue is a new understanding of the complex process by which the earth regulates its temperature. How do we lose in the process? Suppose that we learn how to buffer CO2 and methane emissions through novel means because we fear that higher levels of these gases will affect the environment. How do we lose if we gain that power? Suppose we actually learn how to regulate our own environment? The impact for us and for our eventual branching out to new planets would be staggering.

Is this just pedantry gone wild, the denial of AGW, or is it driven by some weird misunderstanding of the ways that we can benefit from the debate? I simply do not understand why there is much to debate. I agree with Shermer. I think it is time to act. I don't see how we lose from the increased knowledge that is sure to fall out.

[fsol]

Wow!

What religious this thread has become.

Its because the theme is somehow religious?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440869&in_page_id=1965
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Spencer/so_now_we_are_holocaust_deniers.html

But, why is this debate that pasionate?
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Why_has_global_warming.pdf

Many participants insisted about the supposed scientifical consensus about this GW issue, but, is this consensus real?

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/08/25/globalcooling.shtml
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Lindzen/no_consensus.html

Benny Peiser has now posted the Oreskes abstracts:



So Oreskes is lying when she saids that:


Thus the IPCC data doesn't reflect a consensus as falsely the above posters have said.

It even could mean that there are lots of scietific positions in favor of a global cooling:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/peer-reviewed-global-cooling.html

And go back to the end of page 5 and read the Peer reviewed study Wavroche asked me to post.

And also, why nobody touches the subject of the errors in the IPCC reports?

http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=13&idContribution=444&PHPSESSID=7b6415c4d679d6df5c28f395d03c416e

Maybe because the subject is mostly political (despite previous suggestions about supposed "strictly scientific criteria)?

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Pielke_Jr/PielkeTestimony30Jan07.pdf

Before we have passed for this same scenario of inminent doom , just in the opposite direction:

http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html

Read this carefully and compare:

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/NEWSWEEK/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/FireandIce.pdf

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/INHOFE/Hot_and_Cold_Media.pdf

I'm sure they don't ignore that you can get your favorite trend from the avilable data?

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Massen/sea_ice_extent_favourite_trend.html
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2006/03/grace_puzzle.php
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2005/00000051/00000175/art00001
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/20/what-do-we-know-about-clouds/
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Gray/Influence_of_Solar_Changes_HCTN_62.pdf


Everybody seems to defend the "science" on Gore´s movie, but is that so?

http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response-book.cfm
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Monckton/gore_gored.pdf

So maybe the rumors of the inminent apocalypse are greatly exagerated?

http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/20/2/2/1

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc042501.html
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Monckton/apocalypse_cancelled.pdf

Also, Kyoto is useless. That's the crux of the problem.
Assuming for the sake of argument (wich is not the case, but let's say it's true) that this GW crisis is man made and that we are not entering in a new Ice Age, Kyoto solution is useless!
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm072998.html
http://www.junkscience.com/news/singer14.html

We would be better served with a plan B:

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=157525


Most of these links seem to be the same guy repeating himself.

Kyoto is far from useless, it being a way to start the process moving rather than it being meant to be the solution.

[varwoche]

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640#more-640 I pointed out that you relentlessly cite agenda-driven, non experts. And you reply by citing an oil industry businessman! Please tell me this was wry, self-effacing humor! ;)

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Varwoche
And you keep citing realclimate. What a double standard.
If you have a criticism to the content of the article, do so. Or better, please post where someone can find the IPCC 2007 HIDDEN data!
And I pointed you to a peer reviewed study. Find it at the end of page 5.

To Fsol:
Those are not "some guys". If you took the work to read the links you will find interesting names.

[Ichneumonwasp]

The point is that the costs of the proposed "solution is not trivial:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.html
And is also useless!

And that maybe we would need more CO2 instead of less to survive a new ice age (read the PEER REVIEWED paper at the end of page 5 in this thread)

If the point is about pollution we agree, we need more nuclear plants and reduce SMOG to have better air and less respiratory diseases. But that's not the point of the ecofascists.

Your point being what? You seem to think that policy is already dictated by the discussion at hand. We don't know where we are heading with this, only that investment in new technologies could have a huge impact. It almost doesn't matter if global warming is caused (or impacted) by human intervention or not. The investment we make now in understanding this issue and in developing ways to alter the content of our atmosphere could provide us with incredible power in the future.

The point about pollution is extremely complex. The best info we have now actually suggests that the particulate pollution in the upper atmosphere limits the effects of the greenhouse gases. If we were, for instance, to eliminate that particulate pollution and still allow the build-up of CO2 and methane we would probably precipitate a rapid and very dangerous increase in global temperature.

If we need more CO2 to survive a new Ice Age, well that is part of my point. If we learn how to manipulate CO2 content of the atmosphere, by buffering or increasing it, how do we suffer? Wouldn't that knowledge be power as we have never wielded before?

That this is going to be expensive matters how? We pay up front for technology that will undoubtedly transform our way of life and give us powers we never dreamed possible in the past -- power to manipulate our environment on the global scale? I'm sorry, but I don't see the downside to this. We invested huge resources in a quixotic attempt to step on the moon. It served very useful symbolic purposes during the Cold War. We still reap the benefits of the technological advances amassing from that decision to invest in the future. How, again, do we suffer by investing in the future of cleaner and more abundant energy resources? Energy resources that can more easily be deployed throughout the world and aid in the development of previously undeveloped societies? How do we suffer? Please explain.

[Ichneumonwasp]

The point is that the costs of the proposed "solution is not trivial:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.html
And is also useless!

And that maybe we would need more CO2 instead of less to survive a new ice age (read the PEER REVIEWED paper at the end of page 5 in this thread)


Might I also ask for a little consistency? You say that the cost of proposed solutions will be useless. First I am not aware that there is such a thing as an absolute proposed solution. The real solution is alternative fuel sources, with nuclear or solar being the preferred options in my book and attempts to limit carbon emissions/buffer existing carbon in the atmosphere. But, useless? As in reductions in CO2, methane and NO2 will not matter? Yet, you think we may need more CO2 to keep the environment warm to prevent a new ice age? As in, CO2 does affect global temperature? Which is it? Does CO2 affect global temperature or does it not? Is your problem that you just don't think humans have had all that much effect? Why not? And what difference does it make? It is patently obvious to everyone that we pump CO2 and methane into the evnironment through our current lifestyle (which is not restricted to carbon emissions from factories and automobiles). Again, I don't see where the controversy is.

Are you bothered by the fact that there a ignorant loonies who have jumped on the eco bandwagon and, for the most part, don't know what they are talking about? That they may actually be correct but for the wrong reason? Is that what bothers you?

I'm sorry, but I still don't get it. I do not understand the opposition to our investment in alternative energy sources. Who cares if the CO2 issue turns out correct or incorrect if we still benefit in the long run? Our knowledge will expand significantly whatever we find. But, if the CO2 story is correct, and I think even you must agree that is possible, and we do not act, then the consequences will be horrendous. How, again, do we suffer from this investment?

[varwoche]

And you keep citing realclimate. What a double standard. [man banging head on desk goes here] Realclimate is a site operated by climate scientists.

(Incidentally, my cites to realclimate are quite infrequent, <seinfeld> not that there's anything wrong with it </seinfeld>. I think you're confused.)

[a_unique_person]

Wow!

What religious this thread has become.


Its because the theme is somehow religious?



Not at all. The consistent theme I have seen for proponents of AGW is reference to science. Where does the religious aspect come from?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440869&in_page_id=1965
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Spencer/so_now_we_are_holocaust_deniers.html

But, why is this debate that pasionate?
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Why_has_global_warming.pdf



Because we worry about what the world will be like for ourseleves and our children? Australia and Spain, for example, live on the edge of desert areas. These are predicted to grow withe global warming. Both countries have just experienced severe drought that has devestating economic implications if the predictions are correct.



Many participants insisted about the supposed scientifical consensus about this GW issue, but, is this consensus real?

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/08/25/globalcooling.shtml
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Lindzen/no_consensus.html

Benny Peiser has now posted the Oreskes abstracts:



So Oreskes is lying when she saids that:



Oreskes took a sample, he took another sample. In what way is that lying. His lie is that he claims there are papers that deny global warming that he has found. When you look at the ones he says that do so, he is misrepresenting what they state.



Thus the IPCC data doesn't reflect a consensus as falsely the above posters have said.

It even could mean that there are lots of scietific positions in favor of a global cooling:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/peer-reviewed-global-cooling.html



That article does nothing to dispute the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, it talks about possible cooling due to a change in the suns activity.



And go back to the end of page 5 and read the Peer reviewed study Wavroche asked me to post.

And also, why nobody touches the subject of the errors in the IPCC reports?

http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=13&idContribution=444&PHPSESSID=7b6415c4d679d6df5c28f395d03c416e



Did you read it?



The Rutgers University Global Snow Lab Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Anomalies (http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=nhland) plot through January 2007, however, shows that the areal coverage in the Northern Hemisphere has actually slightly increased since the later 1980s!



In other words, if you cherry pick the data, it says what I want it to say.

Look at fig 3 http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf for the long term trend.





Maybe because the subject is mostly political (despite previous suggestions about supposed "strictly scientific criteria)?

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Pielke_Jr/PielkeTestimony30Jan07.pdf

Before we have passed for this same scenario of inminent doom , just in the opposite direction:

http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html

Read this carefully and compare:

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/NEWSWEEK/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/FireandIce.pdf

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/INHOFE/Hot_and_Cold_Media.pdf

I'm sure they don't ignore that you can get your favorite trend from the avilable data?

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Massen/sea_ice_extent_favourite_trend.html
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2006/03/grace_puzzle.php
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2005/00000051/00000175/art00001
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/20/what-do-we-know-about-clouds/
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Gray/Influence_of_Solar_Changes_HCTN_62.pdf


Everybody seems to defend the "science" on Gore´s movie, but is that so?

http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response-book.cfm
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Monckton/gore_gored.pdf



No, not everyone does, but that's because Gore is not a scientist, and he is trying to squeeze a highly complex topic into the preferred medium of these times, a film. He is also misprepresented in that people claim he makes predictions that are not true, but he is warning us what is possible. When you manage risk, you always take into account what is possible. If you don't, you will be surprised how often "worst case" happens. Just the other day at work, a raid drive failed over the weekend. By the time we got back to work, another drive failed in the same raid. It's not supposed to happen, but it does, because even if it's unlikely, it's still possible.

Monckton is an idiot who is full of himself, and grossly overestimates his intellectual abilities to take on the science of climate change. I would not take the word of an interested amateur over that of a scientist and the scientific method.



So maybe the rumors of the inminent apocalypse are greatly exagerated?

http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/20/2/2/1

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc042501.html
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Monckton/apocalypse_cancelled.pdf



Also, Kyoto is useless. That's the crux of the problem.
Assuming for the sake of argument (wich is not the case, but let's say it's true) that this GW crisis is man made and that we are not entering in a new Ice Age, Kyoto solution is useless!
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm072998.html
http://www.junkscience.com/news/singer14.html



Kyoto is not useless, it is a framework for setting up the hard work to be done, and was always intended to be just that. Anyone who is involved in major projects knows that before you can start doing the work, you have to have the infrastructure in place to support that work. Kyoto was always phase one of the job of reducing CO2 emissions, set up a carbon trading scheme, that would become global when the next phase was started, and real reductions were achieved.


We would be better served with a plan B:

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=157525

Now that's the thing, isn't it? What makes you think Plan B will have any more success than Plan A. Both plans have the drawback that they require the active financial support of the business, and, as we have seen so far, business is to a large extent not interested in spending any money on what it doesn't have to. Plan B will fail for the same reason Plan A did.

[fsol]

To Fsol:
Those are not "some guys". If you took the work to read the links you will find interesting names.

It's not "some guys" it's the "same guy". Richard Lindzen. His name keeps cropping up in your links. When he publishes a peer reviewed paper instead of churning out op-ed pieces I might start listening.

I'm an engineer. I have to follow the data. The data as I see it points in one direction. I really don't understand why people are content to ignore the data and instead try to politicise the argument. To me it's like insanity, and I might overstep the line of civility occasionally, but it's out of frustration and the result of constantly banging my head against a wall. At least these people are a minority and the people that matter, the policy makers, are starting to take this seriously.

[Glenn]

I really don't understand why people are content to ignore the data and instead try to politicise the argument.
.
fsol: Good question. I think some people are politically motivated. They're against government involvement in most things, particularly economic issues or restrictions of any sort, and they fear that if they accept the fact of AGW, they may have to accept arguments for the government trying to do something about it. That concerns them so deeply that they're willing to ignore reality.

The same is true of some people who are financially motivated; namely, in various energy-related businesses.

Other people just aren't good thinkers, or more likely, don't have the time or interest to study too much, so they blindly accept whatever people who share their own beliefs and/or politics tell them.

In other words, this is your answer:

Wow!

What religious this thread has become.

.
Lucifuge clearly means, "How religious," but he may not have realized he meant himself. As we all know, when some people are blinded by a belief, and their pride is on the line, compelling evidence to the contrary doesn't affect their thinking very often.


Lucifuge:

Any reason you didn't answer my questions? Maybe you just missed them. Here they are again, for your convenience:

When you say...

They didn't believe the UN panel which, back in the 70's proclamanted the urgence about a man-made new and upcoming ice age.
...are you joking around or are you honestly unaware of the false analogy?
.
...are you joking around or are you honestly unaware of the false analogy?

1. As Brian the Snail already pointed out, the UN panel didn't exist in the 70s to "proclaim" anything. Were you not aware of this?

2. While there were several doom-and-gloom climate predictions made in the 60s-70s, not a single one had anywhere near the overwhelming amount of solid, peer-reviewed data that evidences AGW. Are you unaware of the great diversity of scientific fields that all point to the same basic conclusions, and that this was not the case in the 70s?

No worry if you weren't, just making sure.

ETA: I'm not pressing it to be a pain in the ass, but because I can't tell if you're arguing in earnest; if you are, I assume you'll simply acknowledge your inadvertent errors and move on.

[Ranillon]

Someone earlier in this thread noted how this discussion reminded him of debating 9/11 Conspiracy believers and I think he got it exactly right. I've debated them in the past myself and I am amazed at how similar in form the tactics of GW Deniers are with them. Sure, GW Denial doesn't have the same sort of instant woo factor of 9/11 Conspiracies, but otherwise the two are quite close.

Think about it -- without ever quite using the "C" word GW Deniers are in effect arguing that there is a grand conspiracy to hoodwink the world into believing in a crisis where none exists (or, at least, has been blown way out of proportion). As such their arguments can't help but mirror those of 9/11 "Truthers" -- or, for that matter, any conspiracy theory. The only real difference on this point is that the "Truthers" see 9/11 as a fait accompli needing to be exposed while the GW Deniers strive to defeat the supposed "conspiracy" before it gets out-of-hand.

You see the same basic tactics: Obsession with minor scientific details as a means of suggesting larger problems with the science; selective use of a handful of often dubious "experts" to give the impression of a large difference of opinion throughout the scientific community; regular questioning of the intellectual ability, motives, or even moral character of their opponents; and, most telling I think, a habitual tone of triumphant outrage paradoxically built upon a sense of personal victimization.

One particular tactic that I've seen used on this thread and in many 9/11 Conspiracy writings is what you might call the "Yes, But" Fallacy. It's built on the simple truth that science and reason can never be 100% sure of anything -- no matter what at least some tiny sliver of doubt will always remain. The "Yes, But" Fallacy relies on this by always trying to point out any possible flaw or counter-argument. Sometimes these are genuine -- if minor -- points of disagreement, but often they are based upon misunderstands or complete fabrication. Regardless, the ultimate aim is to suggest that the science involved is by no means settled and/or that there is no real consensus of opinion from experts in the subject. In short, it tries to make the 1% of doubt look equal to the remaining 99%.

The "Yes, But" Fallacy gets at what I'd see as the core of any anti-scientific conspiracy theory -- a distrust of science, scientists, and the scientific consensus. As others have pointed out we can't all be experts on everything. At some point we need to have, in effect, "faith" in the scientific method and the consensus of the experts in a particular subject. Not blind faith, of course, but when we look at the basic data and find that it makes sense we have to trust that there isn't a deeper deception at work.

What the GW Denier conspiracy theory does is play on our fears that we're being duped and that others are profiting at our expense. This can be a psychologically powerful technique as who doesn't get a certain measure of satisfaction in turning the tables on someone out to harm you? Especially given how Global Warming’s effects are slow (in comparison to human time scales) and the costs of fixing it potentially high the easy out of the GW problem is to convince yourself it doesn't actually exist. Deniers provide both a justification for our fears and a way to dismiss them at the same time.

Of course, the way to prevent these sort of ultimately self-defeating attitudes is with a better understanding of the scientific process, but if even supposed "skeptics" can turn anti-scientific conspiracy believers the moment the science conflicts with their own cherished beliefs I can't say I am too hopeful that we'll be able to combat Global Warming without going through a lot of extra pain.

[Pipirr]

Excellent post, Ranillon. I think that's a really good overview of the global warming debate.

[Dumb All Over]

How much of a factor does the act of breathing contribute to global warming? Should we be concerned about the ever increasing world human population and its associated increase in carbon dioxide production through the act of breathing? Would a reduction in human population help curb global warming? In future, if current trends continue, how many carbon credits should I prepare to purchase so that I might be able to continue to breathe without breaking the law? What is the exact cost of one carbon credit (in U.S. dollars, please)?

[Brian the Snail]

How much of a factor does the act of breathing contribute to global warming?

Nothing. The carbon dioxide was originally absorbed from the air by plants during photosynthesis. The resulting molecules work their way up the food chain to us, which we then burn to make the carbon dioxide we breathe out.

[BillyJoe]

Nothing. The carbon dioxide was originally absorbed from the air by plants during photosynthesis. The resulting molecules work their way up the food chain to us, which we then burn to make the carbon dioxide we breathe out.

Yes, it's the carbon stores (coal) that we dig up out of the earth and burn that is the cause of the net increase in CO2
The plant/animal/CO2/O2 cycle is in balance.

[Glenn]

Larry,

Hope you read Randi's latest commentary. He focuses mainly on the Swindle swindle, and gives links for more info.

This is why Randi is such a great role model. He researches, he listens, he weighs without bias, remaining ever open to new and better information, and lets his conclusions change based on the best evidence, welcoming with zero pride the chance to correct or clarify himself, those rare times it's warranted.

If only we had leaders like this.

G

[a_unique_person]

And thanks to Phil Plait, for helping Randi out. As Randi says, he is lucky to have friends like Phil. Gore is a politician, and you don't need to take Gore's claims at face value. If in doubt, dig deeper.

[a_unique_person]

From Wunsch



“I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of
climate change,” he said. “This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit
someone who is on the other side of the issue.”



http://www.badscience.net/?p=383


It's an incredibly complex topic, and to my knowledge no-one has actually made a documentary on that aspect of the issue. Gore is presenting findings, and possibilities, but the actual complexities and uncertainties should be explained as well, and why we need to take the issue seriously even if we can't be 'certain' of exactly what is going on with AGW.

[BillyJoe]

Hope you read Randi's latest commentary. He focuses mainly on the Swindle swindle, and gives links for more info.

This is why Randi is such a great role model. He researches, he listens, he weighs without bias, remaining ever open to new and better information, and lets his conclusions change based on the best evidence, welcoming with zero pride the chance to correct or clarify himself, those rare times it's warranted.

If only we had leaders like this.

That's overstating it a bit. :o

It's not like Global Warming debate has been around for only a few weeks! I think it's extraordinary that he could switch views twice in two weeks on a topic that's been around for decades. Even if he had never ever considered the question before, what about a proper consideration of the pros and cons - however long it takes - before making it a topic for his weekly commentary.

For me it's been sad to see him blowing around like a leaf. :(
Even if he has come around to the correct view. :)

[Moochie]

Larry,

Hope you read Randi's latest commentary. He focuses mainly on the Swindle swindle, and gives links for more info.

This is why Randi is such a great role model. He researches, he listens, he weighs without bias, remaining ever open to new and better information, and lets his conclusions change based on the best evidence, welcoming with zero pride the chance to correct or clarify himself, those rare times it's warranted.

If only we had leaders like this.

G


Well, you could be a leader. But do you have the bottle to put yourself before the public like Gore, Mr. Randi, and Sylvia Browne do?

These people aren't necessarily smarter than you. It's just that they have the gumption (or drugs, or both :D ) to front up to the likes of O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity, and the entire GOP, as well as all those of like mind.

M.

[Major Billy]

Well, at least they're attacking the message, not the messenger. They make a number of very detailed claims with references, rather than just dismissing Al Gore :rolleyes:

Who isn't talking about the exhibit of obesity that Al Gore unveiled at his Oscar-winning appearance this week? Now, Inside the Beltway may have discovered why Mr. Gore is so suddenly rotund: "An Inconvenient Truth."

Mr. Gore envisions a federal takeover of nearly every aspect of the economy and restrictions on people’s individual choices. He has validated Czech President Vaclav Klaus’s recent observation that environmentalism in general and global warming alarmism in particular pose the greatest threat to individual liberty and to prosperity in the world today.

[swifty]

I read this site : http://www.look-to-the-skies.com/global_warming.htm

And it was very interesting. Basically it explains the main causes of greenhouse gasses and things like that. It passed my test of skepticism... it seemed pretty legit.

What do you guys think?

[fsol]

I read this site : http://www.look-to-the-skies.com/global_warming.htm

And it was very interesting. Basically it explains the main causes of greenhouse gasses and things like that. It passed my test of skepticism... it seemed pretty legit.

What do you guys think?

I don't think it is very good. Especially as it says this...


The Great Global Warming Swindle. This is a 1hr 15 minute scientifically accurate program debunking the Al Gore CO2 industrial world doom myth. It uses real science and historical climatological records. It was produced by channel 4 news in England and the media in the United States has yet to show it. For those who want to see real science, as opposed to those who want to be "hogwashed" by misinformation from "An Inconvenient Truth" and all of its followers.

[a_unique_person]

I read this site : http://www.look-to-the-skies.com/global_warming.htm

And it was very interesting. Basically it explains the main causes of greenhouse gasses and things like that. It passed my test of skepticism... it seemed pretty legit.

What do you guys think?

He gets basic facts wrong, like volcanic activity, for example.

Water is the most powerful greenhouse gas, but it is also a feedback. That is why CO2 is so important. It is acting as a 'lever', a large increase in CO2, while it only causes a small direct rise in temperature, still causes a rise in water vapour content and a larger rise in temperature indirectly. That is called the 'enhanced' greenhouse effect. There have been several such feedback mechanisms identified, which, added up, mean there will be a large and ongoing rise in temperature.

[fsol]

I figure that this is the right place for this.

http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html


Mr. Nathan Rive
Doctoral Researcher, Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London
Research Fellow, Center for International Climate and Environmental Research (CICERO), Oslo
nrivehttp://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/blank.pngimperial.ac.uk
Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen
Director, Danish National Space Center
efchttp://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/blank.pngspacecenter.dk
Regarding: “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, broadcast in the UK on Channel 4 on March 8, 2007
We have concerns regarding the use of a graph featured in the documentary titled ‘Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years’. Firstly, we have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless. Secondly, although the narrator commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates, it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming. These concerns are detailed below.

Note that Friis-Christensen is one of the authors of the report that Durkin apparently pulled his solar activity/temperature graph from.

[a_unique_person]

Interesting.