Quantcast

Flaky Flick Suffers From 'truth' Decay

gsweet

gsweet

Monkey
Dec 20, 2001
733
4
Minnesota
i don't mean to pick on ya, shirley, but if this scientist doesn't acknowledge these kind of feedback mechanisms, his theory is basically crap.
 
B

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,160
2
california
gsweet said:
alright, he's refering to a theory. the "snowball earth" theory, which states that the world experienced a global scale ice age (even in the "tropics")...there's even a fairly popular book out about it. my question is how the hell does he know the atmospheric CO2 concentrations? ice cores range back to about 800k to 2million years ago, so it couldn't be those.

well anyways, without reading his paper (which i will hopefully find soon), i can tell you that increased levels of greenhouse gasses can result in initial warming, then significant cooling in high latitudes. it's already happening, actually. perfect example: the hail/snow in italy last year which destroyed crops.

most of you have probably heard about this theory (let me emphasize that word; THEORY)
--> increased greenhouse gasses initially warm the planet and melt polar caps. this leads to a flooding of the oceans with fresh water, which happens to be less dense than saline water. the result is stratification of the water column in the ocean: fresh water on top. depending on how thick the fresh water layer is, it can effectively "drown out" the warm water currents which circulate within the saline level, thus isolating weather patterns from the warming affect that the ocean currents produce. this leads to much, much colder weather.

and again, there are a rediculous amount of published papers on this theory.
Click to expand...
Thereby ceasing the steam turbine that warms Europe...
 
N8 v2.0

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
I heard that the average Iranian does fear global warming more than a US nuke strike....

...that may help your alarmist cause....

???


:p
 
N8 v2.0

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
OOPS!!! :p

AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE
June 27, 2006

The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.” (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 )

Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.

Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:

Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:

“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal

Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.

Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.

"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.
 
Old Man G Funk

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
N8, I can't believe you're going to make me pull out the can o' whoop-ass again and smack you down yet again. Is this what you really want? To display your ignorance over and over?
N8 said:
OOPS!!! :p

AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE
June 27, 2006

The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Click to expand...
Such as? And how many of them are actual climate scientists that aren't getting their funding from oil companies and/or right wing think tanks?
In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.
Click to expand...
Big deal. Maybe they will release the names, but it hardly seems necessary considering that the scientific consensus is behind the info contained in the film.
The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm
Click to expand...
Ah yes, that Steven Milloy of junk science. And, what is his background? Oh yeah, he's a conservative commentator and works for Fox News.

So what if Correll got to see the movie? Is it a big surprise if Gore invited some climatologists to see the movie?
The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.” (http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697 )
Click to expand...
OK, this paragraph right here should signal loud and clear to all reading that the author doesn't know his/her bunghole from a hole in the ground. First, many climatologists have come to the same conclusion as Mann, et. al. about the hockey stick. There isn't just one, but many studies showing the same thing. Second, it hasn't been dispelled, nor has the NAS come out against it. Third, relying on Inhofe for climate science information is truly stupid. Inhofe hasn't the least idea about climate science. He routines cites authors as if they support him when they have publicly come out against his use of their work, IOW they don't support him. Yet, instead of correcting his errors, he continues to cite them. He has continually used his senate chairmanship to confuse the issue and often stacked panels with hand-picked GW deniers bought and paid for by Exxon, Heritage Group, etc.
Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.
Click to expand...
No, that is one hypothesis. Another recent paper just came out that confirms the view that GW is causing glacial retreat in tropical latitudes.
Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:

Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006
I've already dealt with this clown earlier in this thread. N8, even you should be ashamed to bring this to the table yet again.
Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:

“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal
Click to expand...
Where in the movie does Gore treat all change as bad? Also, this is the same Lindzen who disputes the link between cigarettes and cancer. Nice.
Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.
Click to expand...
That is flat incorrect. Try again.
Click to expand...
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.
Click to expand...
Even if he is correct here, we aren't talking about local phenoma, but global phenomena. He should know better.
Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.

"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.
Click to expand...
But, he ignores all the other studies done.

Why am I not surprised?

This is "sound science" as set up by the tobacco industry to combat the consensus view linking smoking and second hand smoke to cancer. The oil companies jumped on the bandwagon and now it's a right wing position to oppose global warming with whatever crack-pottery one can find. It's sad, really.
 
Old Man G Funk

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
N8 said:
...riiiiiiiigggghhhhtttt......


:rofl:
Click to expand...
Adopting a smug attitude is pretty much all you've got left. Face it, the consensus is against you. I suggest you read The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney, especially chapters 5-7. Chapter 7 especially deals with Climate change, Inhofe, and contrarians such as Baliunas and Milloy.
 
ragin-sagin

ragin-sagin

Monkey
Oct 2, 2003
390
0
NZ
Old Man G Funk said:
Adopting a smug attitude is pretty much all you've got left. Face it, the consensus is against you. I suggest you read The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney, especially chapters 5-7. Chapter 7 especially deals with Climate change, Inhofe, and contrarians such as Baliunas and Milloy.
Click to expand...
He'll always have Fox News.
 
B

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,160
2
california
I find it entertaining that Google doesn't turn up N8's "article"...you know, a source maybe?

Isn't that the way all of the worthless dribble you post up is?

Leave out the source, someone here does a bit of data mining and it's not such a big shock that it spewed from the mouth of Goebbels himself originally...
 
Old Man G Funk

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
N8 said:
Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:

“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal
Click to expand...
I seriously wonder if some of these contrarians have even seen the film. I have. And, I can state pretty plainly that if Lindzen did watch the film, he clearly wasn't paying attention. Gore shows how the climate has changed over a time span ranging 650,000 years. It shows the ups and downs over that timespan. It's pretty obvious that the climate is dynamic. He also does not say that all change is bad.
 
N8 v2.0

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Gore Warns U.N. on Climate Change
Stewart Stogel
Friday, Sept. 29, 2006

UNITED NATIONS -- Self-proclaimed "global warming warrior" Al Gore came to U.N. headquarters Thursday to lecture on the "perils" of climate change.

The former vice president and U.S. senator spent almost three hours lecturing more than 1,000 U.N. staffers and diplomats on the imminent perils mankind is bringing upon itself.

Gore, invited by an old "friend," retiring Secretary-General Kofi Annan, spent the evening preaching about the "global warming" dilemma.

Once the house lights dimmed and the video lecture began, many in the somewhat confused U.N. audience used the cover of darkness to take to the exits.

Those who remained often looked transfixed, like folks wearing 3-D glasses in a movie house.

Gore's allegations often seemed like they were taken from "Ripley's Believe It or Not."

Among some of the "facts:"

  • Greenland runs a real risk of "splitting in two."
  • If that happens, substantial parts of Manhattan, Shanghai and Bombay "will disappear."
  • Certain species of frogs and many other amphibians are decreasing at a rate "1,000 times greater" than normal.
  • Cigarette smoking is a "significant" contributor to global warming.
  • The U.S. still contributes more than 40 percent of all current atmospheric contaminants contributing to global pollution, though Gore did admit the exploding economies of China and India are playing a greater role in the Earth's deteriorating situation.

Nevertheless, he took time to thank the efforts of "Wal-Mart and General Electric" for their role in combating global warming. "It has become profitable for them," Gore boasted.

What Gore did not mention is ongoing litigation between GE and residents of New York's Hudson Valley over charges of illegal dumping of (carcinogenic) PCBs in the Hudson River in the 1970s.

While Gore was warmly welcomed by the U.N. audience, he felt obligated to repeatedly tell those in attendance "this is not as complicated as it looks."

After a Q&A with the audience, which had little to do with global warming and more about Gore's political future, Annan bid "adios" to his old comrade.

Then, Gore had his aides open a stack of cardboard boxes to begin selling his book, "An Inconvenient Truth."

So, in the end, Gore's lecture on global warming turned into no more than a lavish book party.

U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric had no comment on who footed the bill for the bash.
 
Old Man G Funk

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
N8 said:
Senator rebuffs CLIMATE HYSTERIA in the media:

http://www.epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264027
Click to expand...
How did I know it was Inhofe before I even clicked the link?

Inhofe presents a slate of "distortions" in the movie that he has culled from climate change denialists, then he says this:
Now that was just a brief sampling of some of the errors presented in “An Inconvenient Truth.” Imagine how long the list would have been if I had actually seen the movie -- there would not be enough time to deliver this speech today.
Click to expand...
[Emphasis mine]
I love it. He doesn't even have to see the movie to make sure that the criticisms are accurate. He just "knows" it is wrong. Yeah, real good work there Senator. I'm glad that you don't have to actually examine the evidence before pronouncing how wrong it is.
 
N8 v2.0

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Old Man G Funk said:
I love it. He doesn't even have to see the movie to make sure that the criticisms are accurate. He just "knows" it is wrong. Yeah, real good work there Senator. I'm glad that you don't have to actually examine the evidence before pronouncing how wrong it is.
Click to expand...
Sounds a lot like a liberal bashing a X-tian huh..?

:p
 
Old Man G Funk

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
N8 said:
Sounds a lot like a liberal bashing a X-tian huh..?

:p
Click to expand...
Some liberals are Xtian. Duh.

Actually, I was thinking that it sounds more like a Creationist bashing evolution. Creationists generally don't know anything about evolution except that they "know" it is wrong. It's much like Inhofe. Actually, Inhofe is probably a Creationist too.
 
Old Man G Funk

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
N8 said:
If liberals would stop breathing that would be a great start to saving the planet
Click to expand...
Actually you aren't completely wrong.

If a large percentage of the human population died out, it would go a long way towards healing the Earth.

Of course, I would never advocate that, and I truly think that you are a monster if you do advocate that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom