Anti-global warming film

[Vitnir]

Is this film new and has it been debunked?
Global Warming Doomsday Called Off
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295

[mhaze]

Is this film new and has it been debunked?
Global Warming Doomsday Called Off
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295


Yes, Doomsday has been debunked by the film.

[Safe-Keeper]

It's old, just like The Great Global Warming Swindle and Against Nature (which, when I first heard of it, thought was an anti-gay movie;)).

It spouts a good deal of BS already before the minute mark. An appeal to emotion ('is this little girl guilty of anything? What about these sweet women?'), and a statement that emissions will cause global warming, as opposed to that it is. Is this documentary from all the way back when people actually denied global warming existed? Seems like an eternity ago now.

Er, yes, by the 2:26 mark, they state that the ice will begin to melt.

I also liked this whole 'they've put Man on trial' thing. It's sure to get some people angry ('who are you to judge people like this?!'), as it's probably meant to.

This doc is very likely debated elsewhere on the boards, so this thread's really obsolete anyway.

[carlvs]

Considering that the person who posted that pseudo-documentary also makes available two videos on the "bombs" that helped bring down WTC 7 kind of shows you the mentality required to swallow garbage like this...

[Vitnir]

The title of the movie didnt show up in any posts in a search I did, but that could be me.

[a_unique_person]

What a freakin stupid film.

"It's not a particularly hot period, in terms of past climate". No, it's not, but a rapid change to a hot period, which is what is happening, will cause numerous problems for the human race, and life on the planet in general.

[a_unique_person]

And it's the usual suspects all over again. This enormous scientific group of naysayers is once again, Christie et al.

[mhaze]

Has anyone actually watched the movie?

[fuelair]

Thanks, I could use a good laugh!!!

[CapelDodger]

Considering that the person who posted that pseudo-documentary also makes available two videos on the "bombs" that helped bring down WTC 7 kind of shows you the mentality required to swallow garbage like this...

I can see how some Truthers get into this - they posit a wanna-be totalitarian gumment, and some contrarians attribute the AGW message to that same shadowy group. It's all about promoting fear, doncha know, when we should really be afraid of the Illuminati :eek: .

[CapelDodger]

Has anyone actually watched the movie?

I'm content with Safe-Keeper's review. (Thanks for that, Safe-Keeper, saved a few minutes of my own precious time :) .) Same old same old - script and cast - and the ice keeps melting.

[JoeEllison]

Considering that the person who posted that pseudo-documentary also makes available two videos on the "bombs" that helped bring down WTC 7 kind of shows you the mentality required to swallow garbage like this...

You've got that exactly right. They have the same mind-set as the creationists, the 9-11 conspiracy theorists, and all the other anti-reality groups out there.

[Safe-Keeper]

"It's not a particularly hot period, in terms of past climate".Now, by all means, of course AGW deniers aren't the only ones with fallacies, but... don't they teach logic and critical thinking in schools anymore? Seriously, some of these pseudo-arguments against AGW should make anyone's alarm bells go off. I know this sounds very pompous, but if I was a denier and got served arguments like 'climate has always been changing', and 'don't fight Co2 - it's needed for us to live!', I'd be mortally offended.

[mhaze]

Now, by all means, of course AGW deniers aren't the only ones with fallacies, but... don't they teach logic and critical thinking in schools anymore? Seriously, some of these pseudo-arguments against AGW should make anyone's alarm bells go off. I know this sounds very pompous, but if I was a denier and got served arguments like 'climate has always been changing', and 'don't fight Co2 - it's needed for us to live!', I'd be mortally offended.

Of course the best anti AGW could do would be to infiltrate, then encourage the production of Inconvenient Truth II

Seriously, what makes a movie worth watching? Accuracy of content is down on the list. Even for documentaries, they have to be interesting.

The best anti AGW is comedy, a la Corbert Report's recent "Canada moves to claim possession of the Northwest Passage against Bush's wishes" tirade.

:D

[David Rodale]

What a freakin stupid film.

"It's not a particularly hot period, in terms of past climate". No, it's not, but a rapid change to a hot period, which is what is happening, will cause numerous problems for the human race, and life on the planet in general.

What do you think happened in the 1930's?

"will cause......." is pure speculation.

[David Rodale]

You've got that exactly right. They have the same mind-set as the creationists, the 9-11 conspiracy theorists, and all the other anti-reality groups out there.

Dr. James Hansen at NASA is a creationist. Any comment?

[Safe-Keeper]

"will cause......." is pure speculation.Far from necessarily. Hitting my keyboard repeatedly with a hammer will cause it to stop functioning. That's not pure speculation, but a hypothesis based on experience with what keyboards can and can't take in terms of damage. While I may not have attacked them with hammers, I've dropped keyboards accidentally to the floor before. They tended to not work as well after that.

[JoeEllison]

Dr. James Hansen at NASA is a creationist. Any comment?Link, please? Or is it yet another in the LONG list of anti-GW lies?

[David Rodale]

Link, please? Or is it yet another in the LONG list of anti-GW lies?
http://chge.med.harvard.edu/media/releases/documents/call_to_action.pdf

It's pretty hard to "save Creation" if you don't believe it was Created, wouldn't you agree?
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/Iowa_70805.pdf

I don't think it matters in the least, but bet it puts a bug up your craw doesn't it? ;)

[JoeEllison]

Nope... sounds like you're misrepresenting his position, which is absolutely par for the course. He's a Christian, evangelical too... and I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe any of the Creationist nonsense about evolution being a "theory in crisis" or that the earth was created in the way the Bible describes. Using "Creationist" in a less commonly accepted way, in order to make a dishonest "point", is exactly the sort of dishonesty I was talking about. Unless you have a link showing that Hansen is a Creationist by the commonly accepted definition, I'll have to thank you for proving me right. :)

[Slimething]

Now, by all means, of course AGW deniers aren't the only ones with fallacies, but... don't they teach logic and critical thinking in schools anymore? Seriously, some of these pseudo-arguments against AGW should make anyone's alarm bells go off. I know this sounds very pompous, but if I was a denier and got served arguments like 'climate has always been changing', and 'don't fight Co2 - it's needed for us to live!', I'd be mortally offended.

This is an oversimplification. I doubt there's anyone who can argue against GW, but AGW is a different animal. The sole basis of AGW is, at best, assumptions and questionable modeling. I'm not saying it's false but, rather that it's speculative and that reasonable grounds for doubt still exist. A presumption that mass contribution of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere would have significant effect may seem obvious but it has not been definitively established. To date, AGW proponents are themselves fragmented as to what to do about the problem.

So, keep your condescension to yourself. I am no doubter but I don't think the AGW camp has anywhere near the evidence and scientific rigor on its side to label doubters as deniers.

[JoeEllison]

To date, AGW proponents are themselves fragmented as to what to do about the problem.
I can't cure cancer. Does cancer exist?

You'd have done better to leave that part out.

[Slimething]

I can't cure cancer. Does cancer exist?

You'd have done better to leave that part out.

:confused: So, the fact that AGW subscribers can't arrive at a consensus proves AGW? Stick to guitar playing.

[JoeEllison]

:confused: So, the fact that AGW subscribers can't arrive at a consensus proves AGW? Stick to guitar playing.Why don't you stick to... whatever it is that you do?

ALL I'm saying is that your inclusion of "To date, AGW proponents are themselves fragmented as to what to do about the problem." doesn't add anything to your position. That's it. I wasn't asserting anything else, at all.

[Slimething]

Why don't you stick to... whatever it is that you do?

ALL I'm saying is that your inclusion of "To date, AGW proponents are themselves fragmented as to what to do about the problem." doesn't add anything to your position. That's it. I wasn't asserting anything else, at all.

I'm a scientist. Specifically, a chemist who deals a fair portion of his time with environmental and health modeling. I know about a bit about the topic and it's in its infancy. False positives and negatives are rampant so, to me, it's no big deal that the output is so scattershot at the moment. And I also understand how anyone doubting the outputs would be puzzled by the great variation in what various interpretations would be. It's my job to refine model output to reflect reality, as much as the models can.

So, when I wrote that what you couldn't understand, I was referring to the natural human tendency to doubt experts who can't agree on the nature of the problem or the appropirate ameliorative steps. There is nothing more counterproductive than scientists claiming one thing to be true but to spout different programs to counter the problems.

I find it very frustrating that some in the AGW camp are now using shame and intolerance against the unconvinced. Frankly, there is no room for this in a free society and it is very damaging to science in general. If scientists can't deliver a hypothesis that isn't backed up by a preponderance of evidence, then they have no right to expect that even a minority of the lay population would follow their advice. Otherwise, science becomes a religion, as many of its detractors would have it.

Cancer is a naturally-occuring condition predicated on the fact that our biota are DNA-based. When it comes to cancer, as you may not know, there are many different types and causes for cancer. Some are best treated with radiation, some by surgery and some by chemotherapy. Medical science now has a very good handle on what type of cancers respond to what treatment at what stages they're in. So, your argument equating what I wrote to "we can't cure global warmng" is insipid, at best.

Now, tell me again what your point was. :rolleyes:

[JoeEllison]

Now, tell me again what your point was. :rolleyes:

I'll ignore your digs at me. My point was this: you posted a fairly rational, well thought out post about GW. Then, kind of out of the blue, you posted "To date, AGW proponents are themselves fragmented as to what to do about the problem." Not having a solution that everyone agrees with has NOTHING to do with whether or not there's a problem. It seemed a mistake for you to toss that in there. That has nothing to do with either of our positions on AGW.

My point in mentioning cancer(which I know plenty about, thanks) was in pointing out the clear fact that knowing exactly what to do a problem has little to do with claims of whether or not the problem exists at all. It is the same reason I have little respect for the claims that fixing AGW will be prohibitively expensive. Does the cost of a solution have anything to do with the existence of the problem?

[Slimething]

Then, kind of out of the blue, you posted "To date, AGW proponents are themselves fragmented as to what to do about the problem." Not having a solution that everyone agrees with has NOTHING to do with whether or not there's a problem. It seemed a mistake for you to toss that in there. That has nothing to do with either of our positions on AGW.

That's a strawman of your own making. The fact that not only AGW proponents cannot agree on the severity of the problem let alone solutions to their various scenarios speaks volumes for the rigor of the analysis to date. If you can't see that, don't try to pin it on my doorstep.

My point in mentioning cancer(which I know plenty about, thanks) was in pointing out the clear fact that knowing exactly what to do a problem has little to do with claims of whether or not the problem exists at all.

If you know plenty about cancer, you wouldn't have tried to equate the two. First, we know there's such thing as cancers so, with just that, your point is out the window. GW may exist, but the whole debate is whether or not AGW exists and, if so, how bad it is. So, to draw a parallel with cancer, you'd have to limit your analogy to those cancers caused solely by the victim's activities. Care to name any?

t is the same reason I have little respect for the claims that fixing AGW will be prohibitively expensive. Does the cost of a solution have anything to do with the existence of the problem?

I said nothing about cost. I was writing about the diagnosis, not the prognosis. Seems you've skipped a step there. Again, you are accepting whole-hog that AGW is fact. It may be. It may not be. Your assumption that the problem exists at all is as uncritical of the current database as the evangelicals you accuse the doubters of being.

To paraphrase a poster I don't hold in such high regard: "I seem to be the only one here who is rationally arguing this topic. Everyone who disagrees with me is being irrational due to their hatred of the other side." Now, whom could that have been?

[JoeEllison]

Seems to me like you're over defensive... with reason or not, it has nothing to do with me or anything I posted.

[geni]

That's a strawman of your own making. The fact that not only AGW proponents cannot agree on the severity of the problem let alone solutions to their various scenarios speaks volumes for the rigor of the analysis to date. If you can't see that, don't try to pin it on my doorstep.


Is Chloromethane carcinogenic?
What about DCM in humans (given how widely that solvent is used a rather important question no?)?

[a_unique_person]

I'm a scientist. Specifically, a chemist who deals a fair portion of his time with environmental and health modeling. I know about a bit about the topic and it's in its infancy. False positives and negatives are rampant so, to me, it's no big deal that the output is so scattershot at the moment. And I also understand how anyone doubting the outputs would be puzzled by the great variation in what various interpretations would be. It's my job to refine model output to reflect reality, as much as the models can.

So, when I wrote that what you couldn't understand, I was referring to the natural human tendency to doubt experts who can't agree on the nature of the problem or the appropirate ameliorative steps. There is nothing more counterproductive than scientists claiming one thing to be true but to spout different programs to counter the problems.

I find it very frustrating that some in the AGW camp are now using shame and intolerance against the unconvinced. Frankly, there is no room for this in a free society and it is very damaging to science in general. If scientists can't deliver a hypothesis that isn't backed up by a preponderance of evidence, then they have no right to expect that even a minority of the lay population would follow their advice. Otherwise, science becomes a religion, as many of its detractors would have it.

Cancer is a naturally-occuring condition predicated on the fact that our biota are DNA-based. When it comes to cancer, as you may not know, there are many different types and causes for cancer. Some are best treated with radiation, some by surgery and some by chemotherapy. Medical science now has a very good handle on what type of cancers respond to what treatment at what stages they're in. So, your argument equating what I wrote to "we can't cure global warmng" is insipid, at best.

Now, tell me again what your point was. :rolleyes:

I am intolerant of the ignorance and deliberate deception that is used so often by the deniers, the best example being TGGWS.

For example, CO2 is portrayed as being insignificant in the atmosphere, so how could it have an effect on the climate? That is a blatantly stupid statement. Especially when we have the CO2 science web site praising CO2 in the atmosphere being an "amazingly effective serial fertilizer", and other such statements of praise for CO2 in the atmosphere.

The only serious scientific stand to take is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and increasing it's concentration will raise the temperature of the earth. The only real debate is the extent to which it will do so. TGGWS is a perfect example the poverty of debate from the other side.

[Vitnir]

The "scientist" that so easily refuted any claims of future rising sea levels are also known in Sweden for his defence of the dowsing rod. That doesnt mean he can't be right about this, all I'm saying is if he told me the sky was blue I would check myself.

[Slimething]

Is Chloromethane carcinogenic?
What about DCM in humans (given how widely that solvent is used a rather important question no?)?

Um..we were discussing the ethics of condemning AGW "deniers", not carcinogens. If you want to discuss common carcinogens, start a different thread. :confused:

[mhaze]

I'm a scientist. Specifically, a chemist who deals a fair portion of his time with environmental and health modeling. I know about a bit about the topic and it's in its infancy. False positives and negatives are rampant so, to me, it's no big deal that the output is so scattershot at the moment. And I also understand how anyone doubting the outputs would be puzzled by the great variation in what various interpretations would be. It's my job to refine model output to reflect reality, as much as the models can.

So, when I wrote that what you couldn't understand, I was referring to the natural human tendency to doubt experts who can't agree on the nature of the problem or the appropirate ameliorative steps. There is nothing more counterproductive than scientists claiming one thing to be true but to spout different programs to counter the problems.

I find it very frustrating that some in the AGW camp are now using shame and intolerance against the unconvinced. Frankly, there is no room for this in a free society and it is very damaging to science in general. If scientists can't deliver a hypothesis that isn't backed up by a preponderance of evidence, then they have no right to expect that even a minority of the lay population would follow their advice. Otherwise, science becomes a religion, as many of its detractors would have it.
:rolleyes:

Well stated.

[Slimething]

I am intolerant of the ignorance and deliberate deception that is used so often by the deniers, the best example being TGGWS.

Yes, but you have to admit that both sides have their wackos. I don't see that someone who questions AGW is necessarily dishonest, evil or stupid. Maybe they're confused, an easy state to come by with all the contradictory statements made on the subject.

For example, CO2 is portrayed as being insignificant in the atmosphere, so how could it have an effect on the climate? That is a blatantly stupid statement. Especially when we have the CO2 science web site praising CO2 in the atmosphere being an "amazingly effective serial fertilizer", and other such statements of praise for CO2 in the atmosphere.

It's too early to tell exactly how effective CO2 is as a greenhouse gas with relation to our environment.

The only serious scientific stand to take is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and increasing it's concentration will raise the temperature of the earth. The only real debate is the extent to which it will do so. TGGWS is a perfect example the poverty of debate from the other side.

Agreed that the specific activity of CO2 in the environment is open to question. It is certainly a greenhouse gas but its threat potential has yet to be characterized. On Venus, greenhouse gases keep the surface too toasty for life so we do have knowledge of what greenhouse gases can do. However, our environment contains many sinks that could buffer the effect of additional CO2. Whether that will happen at all, won't happen at all or the limits of carbon sinks is not known.

I have no idea what TGGWS is so I can't agree with you one way or the other. I will agree with you that anyone wanting to pollute the atmosphere with additional amounts of any gas is pretty daft.

[mhaze]

I am intolerant of the ignorance and deliberate deception that is used so often by the deniers, the best example being TGGWS.

For example, CO2 is portrayed as being insignificant in the atmosphere, so how could it have an effect on the climate? That is a blatantly stupid statement. Especially when we have the CO2 science web site praising CO2 in the atmosphere being an "amazingly effective serial fertilizer", and other such statements of praise for CO2 in the atmosphere.

The only serious scientific stand to take is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and increasing it's concentration will raise the temperature of the earth. The only real debate is the extent to which it will do so. TGGWS is a perfect example the poverty of debate from the other side.

But aren't things like TGGWS a reaction against the deliberate deception of radical green propaganda and Incon Truth? Cause and effect.:rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

Yes, but you have to admit that both sides have their wackos. I don't see that someone who questions AGW is necessarily dishonest, evil or stupid. Maybe they're confused, an easy state to come by with all the contradictory statements made on the subject.

The problem is, people like Christy and Lindzen are more than happy to be associated with a film like TGGWS. A person like Wunsch, however, demanded he be removed from the film. TGGWS is roundly praised by the denier web sites, with no criticism at all.

[a_unique_person]

But aren't things like TGGWS a reaction against the deliberate deception of radical green propaganda and Incon Truth? Cause and effect.:rolleyes:

AIT is basically sound, in that it presents the science, and the possibilities. You want to know what could happen, it could all happen. It would be irresonsible of scientists to not tell us the possibilities if we want to consider what the future will be like for our children.

[mhaze]

AIT is basically sound, in that it presents the science, and the possibilities. You want to know what could happen, it could all happen. It would be irresonsible of scientists to not tell us the possibilities if we want to consider what the future will be like for our children.

And it would be irresponsible for others not to say that is extremely unlikely to happen, which AIT leaves out.

AIT is Chicken Little without the ending.

[Slimething]

And it would be irresponsible for others not to say that is extremely unlikely to happen, which AIT leaves out.

AIT is Chicken Little without the ending.

I haven't seen AIT. I don't get my science from politicians, greenies or attorneys who want to be politicians. Al Gore is an opportunistic dretch and I knew that before he became Mr. AGW. Any cause he champions only has a deeper hole to dig out of. :mad:

[a_unique_person]

And it would be irresponsible for others not to say that is extremely unlikely to happen, which AIT leaves out.

AIT is Chicken Little without the ending.

How likely is 'extremely'. Already there arctic, which was projected to melt at a much slower rate, melting much more quickly than projected. You seem to forget, the scientists may be seriously underestimating their projections.

Risk management. How many companies pay all that money for disaster recovery facilities? Do I really expect my Data Centre to burn down tomorrow?

[Travis]

Thought I'd throw these in to the debate. Do they go over climate records like these in the film?


this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png)
this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9c/Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png)
and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:All_palaeotemps.png)

8246

I'm hoping someone more learned on this can break these schematics down for me.

[Diamond]

AIT is basically sound, in that it presents the science, and the possibilities. You want to know what could happen, it could all happen. It would be irresonsible of scientists to not tell us the possibilities if we want to consider what the future will be like for our children.

AIT is chock full of false statements, wild speculations and outright spin. I am therefore not surprised that you would support it, even though so many of its claims are so easily debunked, because it resonates with what you really believe about the world.

Oh and your statement about how its warming faster than it has been before can be added to the pile of "statements AUP has no intention of demonstrating"

[a_unique_person]

I haven't seen AIT. I don't get my science from politicians, greenies or attorneys who want to be politicians. Al Gore is an opportunistic dretch and I knew that before he became Mr. AGW. Any cause he champions only has a deeper hole to dig out of. :mad:

You know that without watching it?

[mhaze]

You know that without watching it?

I have watched it and have the script. Incon Truth is full of lies and misinformation. You just believe that is okay if the cause is one that you believe is good and that you support. And one that negates the cause, irregardless of whether it is true, is very bad (Great Global Warming Swindle).

This is called by another name, propaganda.

In Canada, Inconvenient Truth is required classroom viewing (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=27a24986-008e-4a55-a18c-fb3fb7acf0e9&k=0)First it was his world history class. Then he saw it in his economics class. And his world issues class. And his environment class. In total, 18-year-old McKenzie, a Northern Ontario high schooler, says he has had the film An Inconvenient Truth shown to him by four different teachers this year.
"I really don't understand why they keep showing it," says McKenzie (his parents asked that his last name not be used). "I've spoken to the principal about it, and he said that teachers are instructed to present it as a debate. But every time we've seen it, well, one teacher said this is basically a two-sided debate, but this movie really gives you the best idea of what's going on." McKenzie says he has educated himself enough about both sides of the climate-change controversy to know that the Al Gore movie is too one-sided to be taught as fact.


Rhode Island College Students Must Watch 'Inconvenient Truth' to Graduate (http://www.gopusa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38607)
To receive a degree from Roger Williams University in Rhode Island, students are being forced to watch "An Inconvenient Truth," the documentary on global warming produced by former Vice President Al Gore.

Britian is on the Gore Propaganda Train
An April 19 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_19), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007) article in Telegraph.co.uk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegraph.co.uk) reported on concerns among parents who claim that the film is "inaccurate and politically motivated" and are "threatening a legal challenge over the Government's decision to send it to every secondary school." Parents claim that "the circulation of the film by the Government amounts to political indoctrination and is in breach of the Education Act 2002."[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth#_note-Telegraph)

The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science by recording the statements of real climate scientists. An Inconvenient Truth mainly records a politician."[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth#_note-55)

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2907059#post2907059)
And it would be irresponsible for others not to say that is extremely unlikely to happen, which AIT leaves out.

AIT is Chicken Little without the ending.


How likely is 'extremely'. Already there arctic, which was projected to melt at a much slower rate, melting much more quickly than projected. You seem to forget, the scientists may be seriously underestimating their projections.

Risk management. How many companies pay all that money for disaster recovery facilities? Do I really expect my Data Centre to burn down tomorrow?

Chicken Little ran around shouting the sky is falling. But it doesn't.

A kid that always cried wolf. After a while, no one would listen to him. Then a real wolf appeared and he cried wolf. Want to guess what happened?

[a_unique_person]

"Chicken Little" is a fable. The IPCC is based on science. The arctic is melting, glaciers are melting, Australia's decreasing rainfall is a very serious problem. Please, show a little intelligence.

[a_unique_person]

I have watched it and have the script. Incon Truth is full of lies and misinformation. You just believe that is okay if the cause is one that you believe is good and that you support. And one that negates the cause, irregardless of whether it is true, is very bad (Great Global Warming Swindle).

This is called by another name, propaganda.

In Canada, Inconvenient Truth is required classroom viewing (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=27a24986-008e-4a55-a18c-fb3fb7acf0e9&k=0)First it was his world history class. Then he saw it in his economics class. And his world issues class. And his environment class. In total, 18-year-old McKenzie, a Northern Ontario high schooler, says he has had the film An Inconvenient Truth shown to him by four different teachers this year.
"I really don't understand why they keep showing it," says McKenzie (his parents asked that his last name not be used). "I've spoken to the principal about it, and he said that teachers are instructed to present it as a debate. But every time we've seen it, well, one teacher said this is basically a two-sided debate, but this movie really gives you the best idea of what's going on." McKenzie says he has educated himself enough about both sides of the climate-change controversy to know that the Al Gore movie is too one-sided to be taught as fact.


Rhode Island College Students Must Watch 'Inconvenient Truth' to Graduate (http://www.gopusa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38607)
To receive a degree from Roger Williams University in Rhode Island, students are being forced to watch "An Inconvenient Truth," the documentary on global warming produced by former Vice President Al Gore.

Britian is on the Gore Propaganda Train
An April 19 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_19), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007) article in Telegraph.co.uk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegraph.co.uk) reported on concerns among parents who claim that the film is "inaccurate and politically motivated" and are "threatening a legal challenge over the Government's decision to send it to every secondary school." Parents claim that "the circulation of the film by the Government amounts to political indoctrination and is in breach of the Education Act 2002."[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth#_note-Telegraph)

The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science by recording the statements of real climate scientists. An Inconvenient Truth mainly records a politician."[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth#_note-55)

AIT is based on Hanson's help for Gore, Gore references the basis for his claims. AIT is based on the usual suspects, as well as a 'scientist' who refuses to tell anyone how he makes his conclusions, and claims that a betting ticket is proof of his work, a scientist who demanded he be removed from the show due to the complete misrepresentation of his work, and an outright liar like Ball, who makes clever logical fallacies that sound reasonable to the unsuspecting public. The actual documentary has lost about 1/3 of it's running time due to the amount that had to be cut from it.

Most of the so-called debunking of Gore is just another round of self congratulatory myth making from the blogosphere.

[Slimething]

You know that without watching it?

Please read what I wrote again and bold any part of it that made any reference to the contents of the film. :confused:

[mhaze]

AIT is based on Hanson's help for Gore, Gore references the basis for his claims. AIT is based on the usual suspects, as well as a 'scientist' who refuses to tell anyone how he makes his conclusions, and claims that a betting ticket is proof of his work, a scientist who demanded he be removed from the show due to the complete misrepresentation of his work, and an outright liar like Ball, who makes clever logical fallacies that sound reasonable to the unsuspecting public. The actual documentary has lost about 1/3 of it's running time due to the amount that had to be cut from it.

Most of the so-called debunking of Gore is just another round of self congratulatory myth making from the blogosphere.

My assertions are based directly on the movie's content and my own assessment of it. Yes, the movie is based on Hansen's alarmism.

Incon Truth is propaganda. Would you like that substantiated with actual references to the script and to definitions of propaganda?

Alternately, we could just agree that some people believe propaganda is all right if required for an urgent cause in which it is necessary to shape public opinion fast.

[a_unique_person]

My assertions are based directly on the movie's content and my own assessment of it. Yes, the movie is based on Hansen's alarmism.

Incon Truth is propaganda. Would you like that substantiated with actual references to the script and to definitions of propaganda?

Alternately, we could just agree that some people believe propaganda is all right if required for an urgent cause in which it is necessary to shape public opinion fast.

TGGWS is propaganda, in that it takes outright lies, and pretends they are fact. Wunsch brought them to heel pretty quickly.

AIT tells the science, presented in digestible format for mass consumption. Everything in it is possible, according to the science. Kilimanjaro is partly melting due to Global Warming.

[a_unique_person]

Tidal trends for Pacific Islands.

http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDO60101/IDO60101.200604.pdf

[mhaze]

TGGWS is propaganda, in that it takes outright lies, and pretends they are fact. Wunsch brought them to heel pretty quickly.

AIT tells the science, presented in digestible format for mass consumption. Everything in it is possible, according to the science. Kilimanjaro is partly melting due to Global Warming.


What planet are you on?

[mhaze]

Tidal trends for Pacific Islands.

http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDO60101/IDO60101.200604.pdf

Sea level changes as measured in the Solomon Islands? And your point is?

[mhaze]

Is this film new and has it been debunked?
Global Warming Doomsday Called Off
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295

Watched the first 15 minutes. I'd call it an excellent documentary so far, it has a central theme which is "anti IPCC results and their interpretation" (not the same as "anti global warming"). The science is well explained and looks accurate. It holds one's attention and interest reasonably well for a documentary. Quality of production and narration is high.

Here are key excerpts.
"The IPCC has become a global warming Bible, you can't disagree and if you do, the integrity of your mother is questioned."
150 years ago was the coldest period in the last 10,000 years, ending about 1875. That's supported by c14 dating from peat bogs, also data from caves in china and measurements from north africa. Considerable evidence suggests that the recent warming may be the result of our leaving the little ice age about 1875.
The IPCC has caused the medieval warm period and the little ice age to vanish, creating a graph like a hockey stick. This is based on Mann, "1998 was the hottest year in the last 1000 years".
<investigation into whether the medieval warm period and little ice age were local or global phenomena> Scientists conclude that they were global and explain how they reached those conclusions.For this 1/3 of the documentary, these are the primary assertions that might be considered "contrarian, denialist or Debunkable".

Anyone care to have a go at debunking them?

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

I have fpund this review to be well balanced:

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/global-warming-scientists.htm




The claims in the TV film which they intend to stop are listed here:


*Not all scientist that participate as authors of the IPCC agree on anthropogenic cause for the resent climate change.
*IPCC is a political UN organization.
*There are many non scientists among the claimed scientists in the IPCC list.
*The huge sums of money have distorted and corrupted this field of science.
*Global warming has become a huge industry employing large number of scientist and public servants as well as business people. Nearly 6000 delegates and journalists participated in a recent conference in Nairobi. I recently read that about 50 000 scientists will participate in the International Polar Year 2007-2008, many of them climatologists.
*Apart from small changes in the irradiance change of the Sun, the Sun as a factor in climatology has disappeared as an important factor from the climate research.
*The close correlation between the Sun's magnetic activity and climate are being ignored.
*There exists today extreme hostility against anyone who claims that there are other causes for the current global warming than human caused greenhouse gases, killing any scientific open debate.
*Anthropogenic global warming has almost become a religion so that now most climatologists are on a quest to prove one specific theory rather than doing honest and good research looking for the truth.
*To deliver extreme catastrophic prediction is good for funding, promotion and status in this field.
*To be critical about anthropogenic catastrophic warming is bad for funding, promotion and status.
*Extreme climate predictions make it easier to get scientific paper published in peer review journals.
*Environment journalists from the main news media crave for catastrophic climate predictions as they make good headlines and news.
*The show shows that not all climatologists are as united as they claimed to be.
*There is no historical proof in recent history that CO2 have changed the climate.
*This manmade global warming theory got promoted in the mid 1980 by Margaret Thatcher who have a B.Sc degree in chemistry and by ”influential decision making think tank groups”. The field of climatology started to receive massive funding during that time.
*The funding shut up by more than 10 times, during that time.
*To mention global warming in other fields of natural science is good for funding.
*Climate models are unreliable especially while they are only based on the theory of heat trapping greenhouse gases or cool trapping aerosols while disregard effects from the Sun. They are further subjected to uncertainties from complicated effects and causes of cloud formation and changes of sea currents.
*Warmer weather means less temperature differences between the tropics and the poles which results in fewer storms not more storm as the climatologists’ claim.
*Untrue claims for the spread of tropical diseases is made by the IPCC.
*Critics of the global warming greenhouse theory are now compared to holocaust deniers.


The above are claims from the program that are all true.




So which films are most misleading?
Al Gore’s movie in which the only data he uses as scientific proof to show the conclusion that the release of manmade greenhouse gases will soon lead to a climate catastrophe are all false. Not only that, they are misleading and deceptive and manipulate the public.
Or
The Great Global Warming Swindle. In which some of the scientific data were not completely accurate. A part of these errors were later corrected by the producer of this documentary.
This program is unique as it discusses other important aspect about global warming and the man-made greenhouse theory and its relation with the scientists that promote it. The climatologists are not able to attack these aspects as they are unable to do that, because these claims are true.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Te above refers to GGWS, not the film mentioned in the OP. But, since TGGWS has become a pinata among AGWrs (who also stand for AIT, how ironic) and it has been mencioned on this topic, I think it woul be good to read my links also.

[Safe-Keeper]

Please read what I wrote again and bold any part of it that made any reference to the contents of the film. :confused:Well, if it has nothing to do with the film, why did you post it? It thought it was at the very least some argument like 'I don't like Al Gore, so his film is full of lies'.

*Global warming has become a huge industry employing large number of scientist and public servants as well as business people. Nearly 6000 delegates and journalists participated in a recent conference in Nairobi. I recently read that about 50 000 scientists will participate in the International Polar Year 2007-2008, many of them climatologists.Your point? Fire prevention is a rather large industry, too, isn't it? Don't a lot of people make money from selling smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, emergency exit signs, firefighters' gear, and so on? Does that mean fires aren't real?

*Apart from small changes in the irradiance change of the Sun, the Sun as a factor in climatology has disappeared as an important factor from the climate research.Blatantly false. Climate models take the Sun into consideration. They'd be crazy not to.

*There exists today extreme hostility against anyone who claims that there are other causes for the current global warming than human caused greenhouse gases, killing any scientific open debate.If it's killed any open debate, how come we are having this discussion? How come the media frequently gives air time to sceptics and deniers? How come

*Anthropogenic global warming has almost become a religion so that now most climatologists are on a quest to prove one specific theory rather than doing honest and good research looking for the truth.A religion is the belief in a supernatural deity such as Ganesh, Thor or God. Calling science a religion is silly to the extreme.

*Environment journalists from the main news media crave for catastrophic climate predictions as they make good headlines and news.This goes for all news, be it wars, terrorism, traffic accidents, crime, and so on. I don't see how it has anything to do with science, though. Scientists don't get their findings from the BBC news, do they?

*There is no historical proof in recent history that CO2 have changed the climate.Even if this was true, it wouldn't mean anything. Before the destruction of Hiroshima, there was no historical proof of a single bomb leveling a big city. Does that mean the bombing is a myth? Of course not, even though, of course, many people said otherwise upon hearing the news.

Fact is, however, that the whole Co2-has-never-driven-climate statement is just another lie, and that Co2 has (driven climate repeatedly before. In fact, it destroyed nearly all life on Earth once in what is known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum).

*This manmade global warming theory got promoted in the mid 1980 by Margaret Thatcher who have a B.Sc degree in chemistry and by ”influential decision making think tank groups”. The field of climatology started to receive massive funding during that time.I once knew a guy who agreed with me the Earth revolved around the Sun. He was schizophrenic. Obviously this means the Earth does not revolve around the Sun.

Gimme a break. It's irrelevant who says what, or when they do it, or how much money they get as a result. What matters is scientific evidence.

*To mention global warming in other fields of natural science is good for funding.For Bush to mention terrorism is good for his ratings. Does that mean terrorism doesn't exist?

*Climate models are unreliable especially while they are only based on the theory of heat trapping greenhouse gases or cool trapping aerosols while disregard effects from the Sun.Repeating ourselves, are we?

They are further subjected to uncertainties from complicated effects and causes of cloud formation and changes of sea currents.Clouds complicate matters, yes, but are certainly taken into account (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/271.htm).

*Warmer weather means less temperature differences between the tropics and the poles which results in fewer storms not more storm as the climatologists’ claim.Does it now? Do you mean globally? Because many areas in the world certainly are experiencing more storms. This is not a claim from climatologists, it's a fact.

*Critics of the global warming greenhouse theory are now compared to holocaust deniers.Which is unfortunate, but not relevant to the science.

The climatologists are not able to attack these aspects as they are unable to do that, because these claims are true.Unfortunately, truth is no guarantee you're impervious to attack.

[JoeEllison]

Well, if it has nothing to do with the film, why did you post it? It thought it was at the very least some argument like 'I don't like Al Gore, so his film is full of lies'.

Well, you know, AGW is a liberal Democrat conspiracy to cut into corporate profits, and corporate profits are the only thing of value worth protecting in the world. Al Gore is a Democrat, therefore he must be a liar(even if everything he says is true, and his critics have to make things up.)

[mhaze]

Well, if it has nothing to do with the film, why did you post it? It thought it was at the very least some argument like 'I don't like Al Gore, so his film is full of lies'.

Swindle promptly corrected the few errors that were brought to his attention in GGWS, if I recall correctly.

Gore never did, did he?

Besides, who said he was not liked?

What "Denier" would not love to have Gore on his "enemy's" side?

[mhaze]

Indeed, they would be crazy not to take the Sun into consideration.
Let's take a look at the importance given by the IPCC to the sun.

Hmmm...
the sun is about the least important thing there....
Houston, we have a problem!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/142244696b7a46ad59.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6998)
[quote]
A religion is the belief in a supernatural deity such as Ganesh, Thor or God. Calling science a religion is silly to the extreme.


Well, yes, that some have turned AGW into a religion (for themselves) is silly to the extreme.

We - or well, most of us - certainly do have to agree with that.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Read the link I posted and you'll notice that the reference to Gore's film is a link to http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/al-gore-documentary.htm. Then refute the facts there.


Well, you know, AGW is a liberal Democrat conspiracy to cut into corporate profits, and corporate profits are the only thing of value worth protecting in the world. Al Gore is a Democrat, therefore he must be a liar(even if everything he says is true, and his critics have to make things up.)

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

If we agree about the contents of TGGWS, then we are all set :D.
See, in AIT all references to the sun are eliminated, the cooling effect of clouds is also unmentioned, you fail to mention that many scientists opossing AGW appear in the TGGWS, and that there are some that mention about their role in the preparation of the IPCC report was misrepresented. Also, many young people thinks that there are just large corporative interests for negate AGW, but fail to see that there are many interests (political and corporative) for AGW. You left aside the lies about tropical diseases spreading to the western hemisphere, and the real effects it would have to make teh changes propossed by kyoto.





Your point? Fire prevention is a rather large industry, too, isn't it? Don't a lot of people make money from selling smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, emergency exit signs, firefighters' gear, and so on? Does that mean fires aren't real?

Blatantly false. Climate models take the Sun into consideration. They'd be crazy not to.

If it's killed any open debate, how come we are having this discussion? How come the media frequently gives air time to sceptics and deniers? How come

A religion is the belief in a supernatural deity such as Ganesh, Thor or God. Calling science a religion is silly to the extreme.

This goes for all news, be it wars, terrorism, traffic accidents, crime, and so on. I don't see how it has anything to do with science, though. Scientists don't get their findings from the BBC news, do they?

Even if this was true, it wouldn't mean anything. Before the destruction of Hiroshima, there was no historical proof of a single bomb leveling a big city. Does that mean the bombing is a myth? Of course not, even though, of course, many people said otherwise upon hearing the news.

Fact is, however, that the whole Co2-has-never-driven-climate statement is just another lie, and that Co2 has (driven climate repeatedly before. In fact, it destroyed nearly all life on Earth once in what is known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum).

I once knew a guy who agreed with me the Earth revolved around the Sun. He was schizophrenic. Obviously this means the Earth does not revolve around the Sun.

Gimme a break. It's irrelevant who says what, or when they do it, or how much money they get as a result. What matters is scientific evidence.

For Bush to mention terrorism is good for his ratings. Does that mean terrorism doesn't exist?

Repeating ourselves, are we?

Clouds complicate matters, yes, but are certainly taken into account (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/271.htm).

Does it now? Do you mean globally? Because many areas in the world certainly are experiencing more storms. This is not a claim from climatologists, it's a fact.

Which is unfortunate, but not relevant to the science.

Unfortunately, truth is no guarantee you're impervious to attack.

[geni]

Indeed, they would be crazy not to take the Sun into consideration.



Been done:

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

[mhaze]

Been done:

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

Lockwood and Frolich 2007.

Yes, that has been discussed quite a bit. There are some rebuttals, and lukewarm interest in discussing it here. Short story is that Lockwood 2007 did not successfully "nail the coffin shut on the sun".

A good question is, if one was to make a list of the ten or twelve pivotal papers on the whole GW subject, would this make it into that group? I think not at all.

[a_unique_person]

I have fpund this review to be well balanced:

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/global-warming-scientists.htm

Piffle. He acknowledges the science in TGWWS is wrong, but then agrees with all the matters of opinion and conspiracy theory hysteria. :rolleyes:

[Slimething]

Well, if it has nothing to do with the film, why did you post it?

Cuz I wanted to. Are you a Mod? No? You think that Al Gore's credibility has nothing to do with AIT? Call up the local newspaper and akd if they've got cave delivery.

It thought it was at the very least some argument like 'I don't like Al Gore, so his film is full of lies'.

Only someone of your intelligence would draw that conclusion. Try leaving the projector in the movie house.

[Slimething]

Well, you know, AGW is a liberal Democrat conspiracy to cut into corporate profits, and corporate profits are the only thing of value worth protecting in the world. Al Gore is a Democrat, therefore he must be a liar(even if everything he says is true, and his critics have to make things up.)

Ummm... I've been a Democrat most of my life. Now I'm Independent. I don't lie. Al Gore does. Bush does. Most politicians do. Like I posted before, I don't get my science from politicians or the newspaper. I can read science. A skill you and Safe-Keeper should acquire.

So, what does that do to your straw man?

[mhaze]

Ummm... I've been a Democrat most of my life. Now I'm Independent. I don't lie. Al Gore does. Bush does. Most politicians do. Like I posted before, I don't get my science from politicians or the newspaper. I can read science. A skill you and Safe-Keeper should acquire.


Yes, even the IPCC reports, which I often disagree with, are a breath of fresh air when compared to Gore and other polemicists or propagandists, whatever they are.

"Politicians who are also lawyers." Yeah Right.:D

Safekeeper: Clouds are taken into account? Ummm.....The IPCC says not very well at all. It's really not clouds per se, but the entire water and precip cycle.

Anyone to actually refute the assertions of the first 15 minutes of Doomsday Called Off?

Or we can go on to minutes 16-30.

[a_unique_person]

Ummm... I've been a Democrat most of my life. Now I'm Independent. I don't lie. Al Gore does. Bush does. Most politicians do. Like I posted before, I don't get my science from politicians or the newspaper. I can read science. A skill you and Safe-Keeper should acquire.

So, what does that do to your straw man?

Al Gore based his presentation on science. He doesn't "know" science, but according to RC, he presented pretty well what is happening, and the possibilities of what could happen.

You can read science, but you know that you would not expect the scientists doing research into AGW to be able to tell you the in depth technicalities of your research any more than you do the same for them.

[a_unique_person]

Yes, even the IPCC reports, which I often disagree with, are a breath of fresh air when compared to Gore and other polemicists or propagandists, whatever they are.

"Politicians who are also lawyers." Yeah Right.:D

Safekeeper: Clouds are taken into account? Ummm.....The IPCC says not very well at all. It's really not clouds per se, but the entire water and precip cycle.

Anyone to actually refute the assertions of the first 15 minutes of Doomsday Called Off?

Or we can go on to minutes 16-30.

The first 1 second is abhorrent. It's just emotional rhetoric.

The science behind AIT is taken consistent with the IPCC reports. They are written for scientists. There was a recent debate between pro and anti agw, with Gavin from RC batting for the pro team and Chrichton on the other team. You can guess who won the 'debate', and it wasn't won on the science.

[a_unique_person]

If we agree about the contents of TGGWS, then we are all set :D.
See, in AIT all references to the sun are eliminated, the cooling effect of clouds is also unmentioned, you fail to mention that many scientists opossing AGW appear in the TGGWS, and that there are some that mention about their role in the preparation of the IPCC report was misrepresented. Also, many young people thinks that there are just large corporative interests for negate AGW, but fail to see that there are many interests (political and corporative) for AGW. You left aside the lies about tropical diseases spreading to the western hemisphere, and the real effects it would have to make teh changes propossed by kyoto.

Since the sun has been pretty constant for the period of warming, then the sun is not eliminated, just irrelevant.

Wunsch had to demand he be removed from TGGWS, since it completely misprepresented what he thinks. The rest are the usual gang of suspects. The depth of scientists who appear on the denier side are pretty thin on the ground.

Lindzen signed off on the report by the AAS on global warming. McIntrye got to waffle on about some minor issue. The conclusion was that he was irrelevant, AGW is real.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Wich is more than you do with AIT.

Piffle. He acknowledges the science in TGWWS is wrong, but then agrees with all the matters of opinion and conspiracy theory hysteria. :rolleyes:

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

"According to RC" LOL. that sets a new ground AUP!.
And this beauty is also priceless:"Al Gore based his presentation on science".

Please try to balance your views. You are presenting yourself as a AGW bigot.

Al Gore based his presentation on science. He doesn't "know" science, but according to RC, he presented pretty well what is happening, and the possibilities of what could happen.

You can read science, but you know that you would not expect the scientists doing research into AGW to be able to tell you the in depth technicalities of your research any more than you do the same for them.

[a_unique_person]

"According to RC" LOL. that sets a new ground AUP!.


Why? They are specialists in this field of research.


And this beauty is also priceless:"Al Gore based his presentation on science".

Please try to balance your views. You are presenting yourself as a AGW bigot.

His advisor was Hansen, one of the leading researchers in the field.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

The conclusion is that you are blind. Anyone who have seem TGGWS could tell about people who also wanted to be retired form the IPCC report.

Since the sun has been pretty constant for the period of warming, then the sun is not eliminated, just irrelevant.

Wunsch had to demand he be removed from TGGWS, since it completely misprepresented what he thinks. The rest are the usual gang of suspects. The depth of scientists who appear on the denier side are pretty thin on the ground.

Lindzen signed off on the report by the AAS on global warming. McIntrye got to waffle on about some minor issue. The conclusion was that he was irrelevant, AGW is real.

[a_unique_person]

Wich is more than you do with AIT.

So far, most of what I have read in criticism of AIT is wrong.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Why? They are specialists in this field of research.

How curious you only recognize experts when they agree with you. CA, on the other hand........

His advisor was Hansen, one of the leading researchers in the field.
I think that Hansen's deep religious beliefs lead him to see himself as a savoir for mankind.

[a_unique_person]

How curious you only recognize experts when they agree with you. CA, on the other hand........



Is not run by experts in this area of research. When did they jump up and down in frenzied joy when Christie was found to have screwed up his figures?



I think that Hansen's deep religious beliefs lead him to see himself as a savoir for mankind.Once again, giving us guesswork as evidence....

[Slimething]

Al Gore based his presentation on science.

I didn't see the movie and don't intend to so I'll just say that, from the sounds of it, he didn't. Science is the consideration of all data, not just the data that fits a hypothesis. The debate continues among knowledgeable people, like you and mhaze, so someone has found contrary evidence that hasn't been explained yet.

He doesn't "know" science, but according to RC, he presented pretty well what is happening, and the possibilities of what could happen.

Bolding mine. That part is 100% correct. If RC is Real Climate, I enjoy going there as well for the AGW side. Those people are pretty good. I'd trust them any day over Gore. The point that I was trying to make before was that many of us were agog over what Gore was saying before he found the AGW issue. Perhaps he means well but he always takes an absolutist approach to scientific issues which he most often misunderstands and uses a bully pulpit to try to shame dissenters. (Dial in Tipper with her "let's censor music" campaign. She's as open minded as he is.)

You can read science, but you know that you would not expect the scientists doing research into AGW to be able to tell you the in depth technicalities of your research any more than you do the same for them.

I can read their science because I know about computer modeling. To put things into perspective, most environmental models used today are unvalidated or, at least, not validated to a reasonably acceptable confidence level. As mhaze has pointed out, many of the algorithms are crude and lack the sophistication to include many crucial parameters, such as solar flux and cloud cover. That flaw makes them fairly speculative but not necessarily wrong. Unreported by Gore and other alarmists is the confidence level of their predictions.

The uncertainty of modeling, which is all that AGW panicmeisters have to play with, is the crux of the dilemma right now. Suppose you run any climate model a thousand times with randomized inputs (Monte-Carlo modeling) and you get, say, 800 hits within the boundaries of "business as usual" in fifty years but you get 100 hits beyond each of the two-sigma limits, with one set of 100 saying the planet will be colder and the other 100 saying the planet will be dangerously hot. There's nothing to say that the latter result is wrong. All we know is that it's less likely. So, that's where we stand today. Your view of what should happen right now depends on what set of outputs you believe are correct.

So, no, I don't believe anyone in the public sphere is telling us the whole truth. I don't have the time to go into the data full bore so I'm in favor of remediation steps that reduce pollution but I'm not in favor of displacing people or shutting down development until the models get more precise and they show that we have to. That will take longer than I have years left, I'm happy to say. In a way, I'm playing the median against the extremes.

[a_unique_person]

*Not all scientist that participate as authors of the IPCC agree on anthropogenic cause for the resent climate change.


The vast majority do. Nothing to do with science.


*IPCC is a political UN organization.

Not so. Nothing to do with science.

*There are many non scientists among the claimed scientists in the IPCC list.

Vague or what? Nothing to do with science.


*The huge sums of money have distorted and corrupted this field of science.



Opinion. Nothing to do with science.


*Global warming has become a huge industry employing large number of scientist and public servants as well as business people. Nearly 6000 delegates and journalists participated in a recent conference in Nairobi. I recently read that about 50 000 scientists will participate in the International Polar Year 2007-2008, many of them climatologists.



Opinion. Nothing to do with science.


*Apart from small changes in the irradiance change of the Sun, the Sun as a factor in climatology has disappeared as an important factor from the climate research.



Rubbish.


*The close correlation between the Sun's magnetic activity and climate are being ignored.



Fanciful speculation based on cooking the books.


*There exists today extreme hostility against anyone who claims that there are other causes for the current global warming than human caused greenhouse gases, killing any scientific open debate.


No, there are severe challenges to come up with research that is peer reviewed band backed with actual research. Instead the deniers have people like Tim Ball, who pontificates but does no research, or Lindzen, who pontificates, but does come with the evidence, or Christy, who gets his figures wrong.


*Anthropogenic global warming has almost become a religion so that now most climatologists are on a quest to prove one specific theory rather than doing honest and good research looking for the truth.



Opinion, nothing to do with science.


*To deliver extreme catastrophic prediction is good for funding, promotion and status in this field.



Opinion, nothing to do with science.


*To be critical about anthropogenic catastrophic warming is bad for funding, promotion and status.



Opinion, nothing to do with science.


*Extreme climate predictions make it easier to get scientific paper published in peer review journals.



Opinion, nothing to do with science.


*Environment journalists from the main news media crave for catastrophic climate predictions as they make good headlines and news.



All popular media craves catastrophe. Nothing to do with science.


*The show shows that not all climatologists are as united as they claimed to be.



Ball, Lindzen and Christy are the usual gang of suspects.


*There is no historical proof in recent history that CO2 have changed the climate.



Logical Fallacy.


*This manmade global warming theory got promoted in the mid 1980 by Margaret Thatcher who have a B.Sc degree in chemistry and by ”influential decision making think tank groups”. The field of climatology started to receive massive funding during that time.



Lunatic conspiracy theory. NTDWS.


*The funding shut up by more than 10 times, during that time.



Lunatic conspiracy theory. NTDWS.


*To mention global warming in other fields of natural science is good for funding.



Lunatic conspiracy theory. NTDWS.


*Climate models are unreliable especially while they are only based on the theory of heat trapping greenhouse gases or cool trapping aerosols while disregard effects from the Sun. They are further subjected to uncertainties from complicated effects and causes of cloud formation and changes of sea currents.



The limitations of climate models are well understood, and the IPCC and it's members will tell you exactly what they are. They do give us a chance to see what is likely to happen, given that warming is happening, instead of just sticking our fingers in our collective ears and yelling I'm not listening. You can choose to ignore them, and just hope for the best. Hope is not a recognised risk management method.


*Warmer weather means less temperature differences between the tropics and the poles which results in fewer storms not more storm as the climatologists’ claim.



It's more complex than that. There will also be more energy in the atmosphere. See the recent floods in the US, for example. Water is more easily absorbed into the atmosphere, for example.


*Untrue claims for the spread of tropical diseases is made by the IPCC.



Debatable.


*Critics of the global warming greenhouse theory are now compared to holocaust deniers.


Not at all. Opinion. NTDWS.



The above are claims from the program that are all true.

:rolleyes:

[Vitnir]

Before I saw AIT I regarded Gore as an alarmist but I didn't after since he to me pretty clearly pointed out that his predictions were worst case scenarios from models.
The scientific consensus as I understand it today is that man made global warming is happening, does anyone here dispute that?
Specific predictions on what will happen is to me clearly alarmist but do we want to wait to see what will happen?
The key points of the film on my first post that I finally tortured myself with was that
* temperature variations are normal, its been warm in the past so no worries.
* temperature readings are unreliable, local conditions where measurements are made have changed with higher local temperatures around cities.

[a_unique_person]

Before I saw AIT I regarded Gore as an alarmist but I didn't after since he to me pretty clearly pointed out that his predictions were worst case scenarios from models.
The scientific consensus as I understand it today is that man made global warming is happening, does anyone here dispute that?
Specific predictions on what will happen is to me clearly alarmist but do we want to wait to see what will happen?
The key points of the film on my first post that I finally tortured myself with was that
* temperature variations are normal, its been warm in the past so no worries.
* temperature readings are unreliable, local conditions where measurements are made have changed with higher local temperatures around cities.

Thanks Vitnir.

[Vitnir]

Both key points of the film has been taken up on this site and was debunked as far as I can tell.
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
A talkorigins.net for global warming.

[mhaze]

Before I saw AIT I regarded Gore as an alarmist but I didn't after since he to me pretty clearly pointed out that his predictions were worst case scenarios from models.


I don't recall him clearly pointing out that the predications were worst case scenarios from models, as opposed to certain, or likely occurrences, and clearly he does not state the time scales accurately.

Anyone have a link to a script?


The scientific consensus as I understand it today is that man made global warming is happening, does anyone here dispute that?
The latest study of over 500 published articles on climate change clearly does not show a scientific consensus on the subject of "manmade global warming".

There is no such consensus.


The key points of the film on my first post that I finally tortured myself with was that
* temperature variations are normal, its been warm in the past so no worries.
* temperature readings are unreliable, local conditions where measurements are made have changed with higher local temperatures around cities.We have actual historical data as well as ice core data that indicates temperature variations are normal.

There is a substantial volunteer effort ( www.surfacestations.org (http://www.surfacestations.org) ) to quantifying the issue of unreliable local and microsite conditions. There is likely no reason to debate that issue at this time, since simply waiting for the results and conclusions of that study will resolve it. Arguably, nothing will be resolved since this is currently USA sites only, but efforts are underway to expand that. Also, simply looking at sites in other countries - Brazil and China - for example, shows site conditions much worse than the USA.

So there is no consensus, actual data indicates past temperatures have been in the range of today's, and there is a large scale effort to quantify local site problems with thermometers.

Slimething is correct, if you want the AGW story, by all means go to RC - Don't get Gore'd.:)

[a_unique_person]

By some strange global coincidence, all errors at all stations across the globe, just happen to artificially raise the temperature.

The trajectory is what matters. When you are sitting in a rocket, for the first few seconds, the speed is will within the range of your average suburban car.

[mhaze]

The vast majority do. Nothing to do with science, Not so. Nothing to do with science, Vague or what? Nothing to do with science, Opinion. Nothing to do with science., Opinion. Nothing to do with science., Rubbish. , Fanciful speculation based on cooking the books., Opinion, nothing to do with science., Opinion, nothing to do with science., Opinion, nothing to do with science., Opinion, nothing to do with science., All popular media craves catastrophe. Nothing to do with science., Ball, Lindzen and Christy are the usual gang of suspects., Logical Fallacy., Lunatic conspiracy theory. NTDWS., Lunatic conspiracy theory. NTDWS.,
Lunatic conspiracy theory. NTDWS., Hope is not a recognised risk management method, It's more complex than that, Debatable, Not at all. Opinion. NTDWS.:rolleyes:

In prior posts you have rejected the work of Armstrong, Forecasts by Scientists are not Scientific Forecasts (http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/global_warming_audit.html) - but the focus of that paper by Armstrong was on the IPCC Chapter 8 conclusions and their non-validity for policy making.

However, you now seem to have moved into agreement with Armstrong.

"Opinion, nothing to do with science". - Even if it is a statement by a scientist expert in the field.

So we can throw out the IPCC and Gore's conclusions, and Hansen's alarmism - as long as we also throw out the opinions of those whom you call "the usual gang"?

[a_unique_person]

In prior posts you have rejected the work of Armstrong, Forecasts by Scientists are not Scientific Forecasts (http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/global_warming_audit.html) - but the focus of that paper by Armstrong was on the IPCC Chapter 8 conclusions and their non-validity for policy making.

However, you now seem to have moved into agreement with Armstrong.

"Opinion, nothing to do with science". - Even if it is a statement by a scientist expert in the field.

So we can throw out the IPCC and Gore's conclusions, and Hansen's alarmism - as long as we also throw out the opinions of those whom you call "the usual gang"?
:confused:

[JoeEllison]

:confused:
When you get confused, pretend you're dealing with a Creationist. The tactics are the same. :D

[a_unique_person]

Yes, Doomsday has been debunked by the film.

"Doomsday"? I don't recall the IPCC or Gore ever using that term.

[a_unique_person]

I didn't see the movie and don't intend to so I'll just say that, from the sounds of it, he didn't. Science is the consideration of all data, not just the data that fits a hypothesis. The debate continues among knowledgeable people, like you and mhaze, so someone has found contrary evidence that hasn't been explained yet.


I have a friend who is actively involved in AGW research in Australia. As far as he is concerned, it is up to the deniers such as Lindzen and Christy to come up with the research to back their arguments. So far, the result is nothing. They have plenty of funding to do so. Christies contribution to date is to present incorrect figures. (When will McIntyre go over his data?) In the meantime, research goes on.

[a_unique_person]

When you get confused, pretend you're dealing with a Creationist. The tactics are the same. :D

When you look at creationist arguments, there is a telling sense of deja vu.

[mhaze]

By some strange global coincidence, all errors at all stations across the globe, just happen to artificially raise the temperature.

The trajectory is what matters. When you are sitting in a rocket, for the first few seconds, the speed is will within the range of your average suburban car.

Indeed.

The rocket has a very precise acceleration - so much so that with the old ICBMs, a hole was burned through the casing to stop thrust when the cumulative acceleration indicated that the ballistic trajectory would hit the target. Alternately, the very ability to reach orbit for manned or satellite rockets, even with the final little "circularizing" adjustment burn, implies very high cumulative precisions.

Now we have these computer models - your analogy. Consider them as an iterative problem with a 4% error each year. Please note 4% is laughable low as an error estimate, 20% is probably more realistic.

Consider that this model computes once each year for 50 years. You now have an error in your calculation that is equal to (0.96 or 1.04) raised to the 50th power. Alternately, consider the range of key variables used in that model. The error is in excess of the range by a large amount.

If the range of outputs was say an average global temperature equal to the starting temperature plus or minus 10 degrees C, the error is so high that either plus or minus 10 degrees C is a possible answer.

In the rocket, we have a cumulative precision, in the climate model, we have a cumulative error.

What is there to learn from this?

If someone tells you to believe the model, don't.

Translated: Don't be Gore'd.

[a_unique_person]

What planet are you on?

Posting quickly between trying to do some work. It is essentially that Al is not the issue, the science he is referring to is correct (to the extent that science can be 'right'. Science is not about simple 'facts', IIRC, it's about finding out the things we don't know as best we can, using the scientific method. Ignore it's findings at your own peril. If the spotlight was turned on economists so gleefully and mercilessly. For some reason we trust them religiously. The debate is about faith, alright, but the article of faith is not climate, but economics.

[mhaze]

By some strange global coincidence, all errors at all stations across the globe, just happen to artificially raise the temperature.


That is indeed quite interesting.

It does seem to be the case that a majority of errors raise the temperature.

But as noted, this is being studied and we can wait for the results.

I do not think it is meaningful to discuss this to any great length. The real data will trump all the discussion.

[JoeEllison]

When you look at creationist arguments, there is a telling sense of deja vu.That's because the "issue" isn't about science at all, is it? Note how much of the debate seems tied to predatory capitalism and right-wing ideology. Feel the hatred for Al Gore, who has been pretty much honest and correct on every issue for the past decade-plus and has been vilified for it. Count the tiny number of denier scientists, and pick out just how many of them aren't climate scientists at all. Examine the links to a denialist machine that is taking the anti-reality propaganda to the common people, because their position cannot survive peer review. They've even got the paranoid conspiracy theory mindset.

The parallels aren't accidental or coincidence.

[a_unique_person]

Indeed.

The rocket has a very precise acceleration - so much so that with the old ICBMs, a hole was burned through the casing to stop thrust when the cumulative acceleration indicated that the ballistic trajectory would hit the target. Alternately, the very ability to reach orbit for manned or satellite rockets, even with the final little "circularizing" adjustment burn, implies very high cumulative precisions.

Now we have these computer models - your analogy. Consider them as an iterative problem with a 4% error each year. Please note 4% is laughable low as an error estimate, 20% is probably more realistic.

Consider that this model computes once each year for 50 years. You now have an error in your calculation that is equal to (0.96 or 1.04) raised to the 50th power. Alternately, consider the range of key variables used in that model. The error is in excess of the range by a large amount.

If the range of outputs was say an average global temperature equal to the starting temperature plus or minus 10 degrees C, the error is so high that either plus or minus 10 degrees C is a possible answer.

In the rocket, we have a cumulative precision, in the climate model, we have a cumulative error.

What is there to learn from this?

If someone tells you to believe the model, don't.

Translated: Don't be Gore'd.

Once again, the Fetish of Gore? He's just telling you what he's been told.

The 'cumulative' error is not so simple. CO2 is always going to warm, it can't suddenly cool. If it was just a simple matter of adding up errors in the cooling direction, that may be so, but CO2 isn't going to not absorb radiation, it isn't going to make it disappear, either. It will keep absorbing it, as it always has, and always will, and send the same percentage back to earth.

The feedback effects so far are acting as predicted. Glaciers are melting at an accelerated rate, so is tundra. They won't suddenly strike an error and spontaneously start warming. Albedo is changing, as predicted. The changed albedo won't strike the error range and decide that more dark matter will actually cool the earth when sunlight strikes it.

And you seem to think the scientists don't think about these things? Just how stupid are they?

[David Rodale]

Before I saw AIT I regarded Gore as an alarmist but I didn't after since he to me pretty clearly pointed out that his predictions were worst case scenarios from models.
The scientific consensus as I understand it today is that man made global warming is happening, does anyone here dispute that?
Specific predictions on what will happen is to me clearly alarmist but do we want to wait to see what will happen?
The key points of the film on my first post that I finally tortured myself with was that
* temperature variations are normal, its been warm in the past so no worries.
* temperature readings are unreliable, local conditions where measurements are made have changed with higher local temperatures around cities.

Specific predictions on what will happen is to me clearly alarmist but do we want to wait to see what will happen?
In order to believe AGW is true, one must already assume positive feedbacks dominate nature. If that’s the case, what has prevented the climate from running away already? If humans are in fact contributing a mere ~.2% of the total GHG in the atmosphere one must believe the earth is akin to an egg precariously balanced on the head of a pin, so sensitive to any change it will crash wildly out of control.

First, what does consensus have to do with science? Second, yes I dispute there is the consensus claimed by AGW proponents. Certainly there are many scientists proposing scenarios, a lot of IF, speculation and opinions, but when it comes to actual evidence supporting the hypothesis of CO2 driven climate change, my challenge as it has always been, provide the evidence. News headlines, claims of consensus, scientist opinions, climate models and scary scenarios are not evidence. Further, AGW seems to be unaware of the diminishing return of increasing CO2 levels, in that it is a logarithmic function, not linear. In other words, the more atmospheric CO2, the less effect it has than the previous.

If what Al Gore says is alarmist, which means exaggerated or over the top, how do you know what is and isn’t factual? Will you apply this line of reasoning using the most outrageous predictions or the lesser thereof?

Do you agree it has been warmer in the past?

Let's look at one issue in AIT regarding Greenland in particular. We've been told Greenland is the 'canary in the mine'. Previous studies and historical evidence showed Greenland has been warmer than today for very long periods of time, yet the evidence was discounted or completely ignored. AGW proponents have attempted to reduce the Vikings to wandering nomads or summer tourists, yet the immense archaeological and historical evidence cannot be explained away by such nonsense. Did the Vikings get their supplies air lifted in? Are the 300 building foundations natural phenomena?

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_climate_change.html
Greenland Climate Change (abstract)
P. Chylek, M. Dubey, M. McCabe, G. Lesins
Los Alamos National Laboratory & Dalhousie University
We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records and compare the current (1995-2005) warming period with the previous (1920-1930) Greenland warming. We find that the temperature increases are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995-2005. Although the last decade of 1995-2005 was relatively warm, all decades within 1915 to 1965 were warmer at both the southwestern (Godthab Nuuk) and the southeastern (Ammassalik) coasts of Greenland. The current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history.

We find no evidence to support the claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. The rate of warming from 1995 to 2005 was in fact lower than the warming that occurred from 1920 to 1930. The temperature trend during the next ten years may be a decisive factor in a possible detection of an anthropogenic part of climate signal over area of the Greenland ice sheet.

Note the last sentence. More recent research from University of Copenhagen proves beyond any doubt Greenland has been much warmer than today for long periods of time as it is direct evidence, something AGW has not presented for it's first cause, that being rising CO2 will raise temperature 2.4+C. Please provide empirical evidence supporting that claim.



This study in Barrow, Alaska, population 4500 using direct measurements. If UHI can be documented in such a small area in winter time, what gives you comfort in any of the surface measurements in large urban environments, many of which had the original thermometers installed when the location was rural, but now is sprawling city?
http://www.geography.uc.edu/~kenhinke/uhi/Hinkel&Nelson_JGR-A_2007.pdf

Are you saying UHI (urban heat island) is not an issue with temperature monitoring? These studies say otherwise. There are several if not dozens more addressing this issue, which IPCC evidently completely ignored or were oblivious to. AGW proponents ignore or ridicule the work of Anthony Watts at http://www.surfacestations.org, yet cannot explain away the evidence.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-268.pdf

So I ask, if Al Gore is only repeating what he’s been told, how can he be reliable? When he says, paraphrased, “no credible scientist disagrees…..”, is he ignorant, a dupe or disingenuous?

What AGW proponents are effectively creating is an irrefutable hypothesis, in that no matter what weather events occur, warming or cooling, windy or still, floods or drought, less or more hurricanes, all can somehow be explained by ‘global warming’.

In the meantime, while CO2 levels continue to rise, surface temperature trends are not and neither are ocean temperatures. You can’t have it both ways.

[mhaze]

Once again, the Fetish of Gore? He's just telling you what he's been told.

The 'cumulative' error is not so simple. CO2 is always going to warm, it can't suddenly cool. If it was just a simple matter of adding up errors in the cooling direction, that may be so, but CO2 isn't going to not absorb radiation, it isn't going to make it disappear, either. It will keep absorbing it, as it always has, and always will, and send the same percentage back to earth.

The feedback effects so far are acting as predicted. Glaciers are melting at an accelerated rate, so is tundra. They won't suddenly strike an error and spontaneously start warming. Albedo is changing, as predicted. The changed albedo won't strike the error range and decide that more dark matter will actually cool the earth when sunlight strikes it.

And you seem to think the scientists don't think about these things? Just how stupid are they?

Being blinded by alarmism, as appears to be the case with Hansen, can indeed lead one to stupid conclusions because there is a strong tendency to overlook evidence and data that is contrary to one's desired conclusions.

When such a "true believer" is in a position of authority, that is improper and may (not will) affect his judgement, which is why I said he should resign. This does not say that he does not believe what he says, rather it is quite respectful of those opinions. They simply have no place in the job definition of a scientist heading a major government research institution.

As for your saying that things are not quite as simple as my model, no of course they are not. They are more complex, and much less predictable or manageable.

We are discussing scientists trying to model a system with chaotic behavior, right?

That is basically impossible - without going into all the details, I wonder if this is understandable.

Without agreeing with his conclusions, I think that CP's way of looking at direct evidence from the lab-being-the-world has more meaning than looking at evidence from the world as validating the models.

[Slimething]

That's because the "issue" isn't about science at all, is it? Note how much of the debate seems tied to predatory capitalism and right-wing ideology.

Well, obviously, the debate is not about science for you. For the rest of us, it is. Perhaps you should take your views to the CT forum where it belongs. Otherwise, post something more substantive than "it's all a <choose favorite boogeyman> - based consipiracy!". :rolleyes:

Feel the hatred for Al Gore, who has been pretty much honest and correct on every issue for the past decade-plus and has been vilified for it.

You obviously know very little about the man. Read his "Earth in the Balance" which is full of factual errors and, dare I say it, misrepresentations. Also, his wholesale backing of the thoroughly debunked "Our Stolen Future" put him squarely in the pseudoscience camp, at least for me.

Count the tiny number of denier scientists, and pick out just how many of them aren't climate scientists at all. Examine the links to a denialist machine that is taking the anti-reality propaganda to the common people, because their position cannot survive peer review. They've even got the paranoid conspiracy theory mindset.

The parallels aren't accidental or coincidence.

[cue Twilight Zone theme] Yes, dear, it's all one big conspiracy, dear. All scientists always agree on everything. There must be some big meanies who just want to cause trouble. Life and reality is really, really simple. So simple that even grad-school flunkees can understand it better than most scientists. You can forget that fact is not a majority sport. Why don't you go talk to your good friends on the CT forum, dear? Want some hot milk? :boggled:

[mhaze]

[quote=Slimething;2911995]
You obviously know very little about the man. Read his "Earth in the Balance" which is full of factual errors and, dare I say it, misrepresentations.
/quote]

I got a good chuckle out of Earth in the Balance. But of course he was serious.

Gore's interview by Rolling Stone, available on the web, probably is a good reference as to his personal belief set.

[mhaze]

Once again, the Fetish of Gore? He's just telling you what he's been told.

The 'cumulative' error is not so simple. CO2 is always going to warm, it can't suddenly cool. If it was just a simple matter of adding up errors in the cooling direction, that may be so, but CO2 isn't going to not absorb radiation, it isn't going to make it disappear, either. It will keep absorbing it, as it always has, and always will, and send the same percentage back to earth.

The feedback effects so far are acting as predicted. Glaciers are melting at an accelerated rate, so is tundra. They won't suddenly strike an error and spontaneously start warming. Albedo is changing, as predicted. The changed albedo won't strike the error range and decide that more dark matter will actually cool the earth when sunlight strikes it.

And you seem to think the scientists don't think about these things? Just how stupid are they?

Note the following regarding the accuracy of climate models.

Scott Armstrong and Kesten Green found the IPCC forecasts have no validity and conclude that the there is no more reason to expect global warming over the next 90 years than there is to expect global cooling. It would therefore be foolish and extremely costly to base public policy on the IPCC forecasts.

Scott Armstrong presented the Armstrong and Green paper at a keynote session at the International Symposium on Forecasting on Wednesday June 27. Following in the tradition of Julian's Simon Bet (https://webmail.wharton.upenn.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrlich-Simon_bet), Scott Armstrong announced a $20,000 Global Warming Challenge (https://webmail.wharton.upenn.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.theclimatebet.com) (each side to post $10,000 to go to a charitable cause nominated by the winner) that he will be able to more accurately forecast climate change than can any current fully disclosed climate model.


Armstrong's Global Warming Challenge stands unanswered.

Why?

[David Rodale]

Note the following regarding the accuracy of climate models.

Scott Armstrong and Kesten Green found the IPCC forecasts have no validity and conclude that the there is no more reason to expect global warming over the next 90 years than there is to expect global cooling. It would therefore be foolish and extremely costly to base public policy on the IPCC forecasts.

Scott Armstrong presented the Armstrong and Green paper at a keynote session at the International Symposium on Forecasting on Wednesday June 27. Following in the tradition of Julian's Simon Bet (https://webmail.wharton.upenn.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrlich-Simon_bet), Scott Armstrong announced a $20,000 Global Warming Challenge (https://webmail.wharton.upenn.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.theclimatebet.com) (each side to post $10,000 to go to a charitable cause nominated by the winner) that he will be able to more accurately forecast climate change than can any current fully disclosed climate model.


Armstrong's Global Warming Challenge stands unanswered.

Why?

It appears Al Gore was way off on his 20 ft. sea level claim as Hansen is now saying 80 ft by 2100 :eek: And people wonder why he needs a leash. Well, maybe he will be vindicated since Greenpeace has now published their evidence to support AGW.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070818214642.2288blmn&show_article=1
All that because the courts determined crazy people can't be forced to be placed in sanitariums. Just think, if the whole world did that we'd have a cooler planet, less war, pollution, crime and soccer would be more popular in the U.S.

[mhaze]

It appears Al Gore was way off on his 20 ft. sea level claim as Hansen is now saying 80 ft by 2100 :eek: And people wonder why he needs a leash. Well, maybe he will be vindicated since Greenpeace has now published their evidence to support AGW.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070818214642.2288blmn&show_article=1
All that because the courts determined crazy people can't be forced to be placed in sanitariums. Just think, if the whole world did that we'd have a cooler planet, less war, pollution, crime and soccer would be more popular in the U.S.

80 Feet?

We just went through in another thread, "Global Warming", the numbers that showed if Greenland melted, which would take a thousand years, sea level would rise approximately 20 feet. As I recall, everybody was in agreement with those numbers and that time frame - basically because that ice is two miles or so in thickness. (that the complete melting of Greenland in 1000 years was based on a worst case model scenario with an 8 degree C rise for that entire 1000 years).

Okay....so going from that....

It does not take a raving Deniar to check a few facts and determine that Hansen is not a good one to kept in the lifeboat.

Oops.

He's Captain of that NASA boat to starboard......

Houston, we got a problem!

[a_unique_person]

Note the following regarding the accuracy of climate models.

Scott Armstrong and Kesten Green found the IPCC forecasts have no validity and conclude that the there is no more reason to expect global warming over the next 90 years than there is to expect global cooling. It would therefore be foolish and extremely costly to base public policy on the IPCC forecasts.

Scott Armstrong presented the Armstrong and Green paper at a keynote session at the International Symposium on Forecasting on Wednesday June 27. Following in the tradition of Julian's Simon Bet (https://webmail.wharton.upenn.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrlich-Simon_bet), Scott Armstrong announced a $20,000 Global Warming Challenge (https://webmail.wharton.upenn.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.theclimatebet.com) (each side to post $10,000 to go to a charitable cause nominated by the winner) that he will be able to more accurately forecast climate change than can any current fully disclosed climate model.


Armstrong's Global Warming Challenge stands unanswered.

Why?

:rolleyes: More science by betting slips. How degrading.

I repeat, they are referring to experience economic modelling, when I read their page. Their assertion that there it is no more likely to see cooling than warming is just bare faced stupidity. A person may arbitrarily change their mind, and spend more or less, a CO2 molecule can't suddenly decide to stop capturing radiation of a specific frequency.

[a_unique_person]

80 Feet?

We just went through in another thread, "Global Warming", the numbers that showed if Greenland melted, which would take a thousand years, sea level would rise approximately 20 feet. As I recall, everybody was in agreement with those numbers and that time frame - basically because that ice is two miles or so in thickness. (that the complete melting of Greenland in 1000 years was based on a worst case model scenario with an 8 degree C rise for that entire 1000 years).

Okay....so going from that....

It does not take a raving Deniar to check a few facts and determine that Hansen is not a good one to kept in the lifeboat.

Oops.

He's Captain of that NASA boat to starboard......

Houston, we got a problem!

Two issues. It's not just Greenland that will contribute to sea level rise. The understanding of the breakdown of ice shelves is low. The recent ice shelf collaps in Antarctica illustrates how sudden this process can be. So, do you feel lucky, punk?

[varwoche]

Blue text added with bleak amusement... :rolleyes: More science by betting slips from a professor of marketing. How degrading.

[JoeEllison]

Note the following regarding the accuracy of climate models.

Scott Armstrong and Kesten Green found the IPCC forecasts have no validity and conclude that the there is no more reason to expect global warming over the next 90 years than there is to expect global cooling. It would therefore be foolish and extremely costly to base public policy on the IPCC forecasts.

Scott Armstrong presented the Armstrong and Green paper at a keynote session at the International Symposium on Forecasting on Wednesday June 27. Following in the tradition of Julian's Simon Bet (https://webmail.wharton.upenn.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrlich-Simon_bet), Scott Armstrong announced a $20,000 Global Warming Challenge (https://webmail.wharton.upenn.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.theclimatebet.com) (each side to post $10,000 to go to a charitable cause nominated by the winner) that he will be able to more accurately forecast climate change than can any current fully disclosed climate model.


Armstrong's Global Warming Challenge stands unanswered.

Why?
Scott Armstrong, professor of Marketing, and Green's in Economics. Can't find any climate scientists, I see. How many minutes will it take me to find their ultra-radical right-wing ties? 7?

[mhaze]

Two issues. It's not just Greenland that will contribute to sea level rise. The understanding of the breakdown of ice shelves is low. The recent ice shelf collaps in Antarctica illustrates how sudden this process can be.

So, do you feel lucky, punk?

Well, let's take a bit more of a look at Hansen, the "brain" behind Gore.

But I must warn you - it is not going to be pretty.

Here's Dr. Hansen's pledge for 2008 presidential candidates.
1. Moratorium on Dirty Coal
I will support a moratorium on coal-fired power plants that do not capture and sequester CO2.

2. Price on Carbon Emissions
I will support a fair, gradually rising, price on carbon emissions, reflecting costs to the environment. Mechanisms to adjust price should be apolitical and economically sound.

3. Energy Efficiency & Conservation Incentives
I will support measures to improve energy efficiency, e.g., rewarding utilities and others based on energy and carbon efficiencies, rather than on the amount of energy sold.Let's just look at point number 1. Some time ago I posted as a joke, a general concept for implementing carbon sequesteration plants on the east and west coasts of the USA. Although a joke, the scale, magnitude, time frame, and geography of that plan would be roughly accurate.

Now let's get to reality.

There is no such thing as sequestering carbon dioxide. That's science fiction. We do not have those plants. We don't know how good or how poorly they might work, if they were built, or how much they would cost.

Point number 1 in Hansen's plan is out of touch with - Reality.

[JoeEllison]

Blue text added with bleak amusement...There's money to be made in forecasting... and lots of money if you can pretend that it disproves climate science.:mad:

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Why do you amuse yourselft, consideering that the whole "consensus" idea came from Oreskes, who in no way is a climate scientist?
Blue text added with bleak amusement...

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Interesting i see plenty of work and grants for climatologists, as long as they sign the pledge of allegiance to AGW.

There's money to be made in forecasting... and lots of money if you can pretend that it disproves climate science.:mad:

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Why don't you peruse the Global Warming thread to see lots of peer reviewed papers and climate scientists disagreeing with AGW?
And the one who is bringing the vast right wing conspiracy here is you :D

Scott Armstrong, professor of Marketing, and Green's in Economics. Can't find any climate scientists, I see. How many minutes will it take me to find their ultra-radical right-wing ties? 7?

[a_unique_person]

Well, let's take a bit more of a look at Hansen, the "brain" behind Gore.

But I must warn you - it is not going to be pretty.

Here's Dr. Hansen's pledge for 2008 presidential candidates. 1. Moratorium on Dirty Coal
I will support a moratorium on coal-fired power plants that do not capture and sequester CO2.

2. Price on Carbon Emissions
I will support a fair, gradually rising, price on carbon emissions, reflecting costs to the environment. Mechanisms to adjust price should be apolitical and economically sound.

3. Energy Efficiency & Conservation Incentives
I will support measures to improve energy efficiency, e.g., rewarding utilities and others based on energy and carbon efficiencies, rather than on the amount of energy sold.Let's just look at point number 1. Some time ago I posted as a joke, a general concept for implementing carbon sequesteration plants on the east and west coasts of the USA. Although a joke, the scale, magnitude, time frame, and geography of that plan would be roughly accurate.

Now let's get to reality.

There is no such thing as sequestering carbon dioxide. That's science fiction. We do not have those plants. We don't know how good or how poorly they might work, if they were built, or how much they would cost.

Point number 1 in Hansen's plan is out of touch with - Reality.






He is trying to get something happening on CS. Research is going on, but that doesn't mean it can't work. Given that we are committed to coal plants, after the determined resistance to Kyoto, we have no other choice. Pilot plants have been produced, but that's really just research.

It's really beside the point, anyway, what he wants as an individual is different to reasearch conducted as a scientist.