[Old Man G Funk]

hey, u started it with your blog-o-site...

My blog site run by named, actual climate scientists that details actual peer-reviewed work with citations and everything? Oh yeah, I can see how you might mistake that for being on par with your site that has none of that.

 

[N8 v2.0]

My blog site run by named, actual climate scientists that details actual peer-reviewed work with citations and everything? Oh yeah, I can see how you might mistake that for being on par with your site that has none of that.

We’re climatologists. We use different laws of physics, different laws of mathematics and different laws of logic from everybody else.

So you may have a degree in mathematics, a PhD in physics, a Masters in logic, but you’re not qualified to see our data.

!!!!

 

[Old Man G Funk]

!!!!

We all love your unattributed quotes N8.

 

[N8 v2.0]

We all love your unattributed quotes N8.

Oh, i thought u knew all... here ya go then: www.climateaudit.org

 

[Tenchiro]

Can we get a source on that? What motivation would they have for doing that when they didn't really follow through that much. They would have been setting themselves up as do-nothings in the face of serious threat.

Also, even if that is true, it doesn't change the scientific consensus and it doesn't make our current admin. any less culpable, nor does it make Gore's presentation invalid if he is (now) presenting the best science we have to date.

Note: I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know for sure that he is presenting the best science to date.

It was in some magazine (National Geo?). So I can't link it or anything.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Oh, i thought u knew all... here ya go then: www.climateaudit.org

Nope, not all. 99% maybe, but not all.

Your point?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

It was in some magazine (National Geo?). So I can't link it or anything.

Like I said, even if the allegation is true, climatologists are behind this movie.

 

[N8 v2.0]

last word!

 

[Old Man G Funk]

last word!

So you linked to a joke post on a blog and copied the comment of some random person in the comments section for the last word? Oh, I forgot, you also tried to make a jab at me. Well, when you can't hang with the debate, I guess that's as good a play as any.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

BTW N8, your hero on that climate audit site, Steven McIntyre, has a whole web page devoted to debunking his ideas.

http://info-pollution.com/mandm.htm

 

[N8 v2.0]

shouldn't u be playing with your hocky stick?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

shouldn't u be playing with your hocky stick?

That would have been clever had you said, "Hokey stick."

 

[golgiaparatus]

Guy That Ran Against Bush Makes Documentary, N8 Posts Bad Review, News At 11

 

[dante]

N8, I'm glad to see that your "other viewpoints" run the gamut from A-B.

NYP, WSJ opinion page, and a random GOP website? I think that The Onion has a bit more credibility than all 3 of those put together. today's WSJ has this for it's online opinion page:

REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Justice Kennedy's Culture War
How gay marriage became a federal case, alas.

Praise Canada
Electronic surveillance is crucial for uncovering terrorist plots.

A Different Judicial Battle
A nominee from the Pentagon gets a bad rap.

COMMENTARY
DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. and LEE A. CASEY
'Lawfare' Over Haditha
Anti-Bush critics are cynically leveraging the Haditha killings.

BRIAN S. WESBURY
Economic Rehab
Ben Bernanke is weaning the markets off bad habits.

WILBUR ROSS
Who Does Arcelor Belong To?
The company is defying good corporate governance.

 

[N8 v2.0]

GORE NAME DROPPED FROM 'WARMING' MOVIE POSTER, CREDITS
Wed Jun 07 2006 10:28:38 ET

Former Vice President Al Gore's name is nowhere to be found on PARAMOUNT's poster campaign for the new 'global warming' movie 'AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH.'

Gore's name is not featured on the dramatic poster promoting the movie -- a poster which welcomes moviegoers at the nation's theaters!

[Click for Large View]

"It's not a political movie," a top source at PARAMOUNT explained, offering no other explanation on why Gore's name does not appear, even in the film's credits on the poster.

A rival studio executive claims marketing research showed little audience interest in a movie starring Al Gore.

The film has made $2,070,413 so far at the boxoffice in limited release.

 

[Changleen]

Yeah, it was making more per screening than any other movie out at the time... real unpopular.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Yeah, it was making more per screening than any other movie out at the time... real unpopular.

If people cared that much...global warming wouldnt be a problem.

 

[Changleen]

If people cared that much...global warming wouldnt be a problem.

That was a dumb statement even for you.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

So we have a smaller fraction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Changleen]

N8, The fact is, it IS getting warmer.

 

[dhbuilder]

N8 rules !!!

 

[blue]

Holy ****, N8 is actually trying (Still, failing) to respond to rebuttals in one of his worthless PAWN threads! Kodak Moment...

 

[Changleen]

PAWN3d!! It's PAWN3d OK?

 

[stevew]

Yeah, it was making more per screening than any other movie out at the time... real unpopular.

How many screens was it showing on?

 

[DaveW]

PAWN3d!! It's PAWN3d OK?

LMAO!!

OMG your out groming the grom!!

 

[Old Man G Funk]

N8, why didn't you cut and paste the whole entire article or at least provide a link?

This is the part you left off:

Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com

So, the writer is not a climate scientist and works for some "public affairs and public policy company." This High Park Group is pretty nebulous as well. Their website gives no mention of their positions or anything. Turns out their group works with the US DOE, so there's no conflicts of interest there.

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

And those weak arguments are? Oh yeah, he doesn't say. A little digging though and one can find this tidbit:

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter
(Filed: 09/04/2006)

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero)....

Of course, this proves that he is disingenuous. No one is saying that every year will be warmer than the last, and 1998 happened to be the hottest year recorded. So, yeah, there was significant cooling between 1998 and 1999, and global mean temperatures have risen from 1999-2005. In fact, 2005 was just about the same as 1998. So, this guy is basically an idiot.

Back to N8's article:

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

This is again misleading. Yes, most models are wrong because they model for a whole range of possible factors. The things is that when the factors are guessed correctly and we go back and see how well the model did, it's usually spot on. This guy is a tard.

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

More tardity. He's wrong about the CO2 levels. We are currently in the highest CO2 levels in over 650,000 years.
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1124-climate.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4802
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/5525/2310?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=CO2+levels&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

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

In 75 square mile chunks? We also see that those ice bergs are melting and the snow fall is not enough to replenish.
Shall I go on?

It's like throwing a brick through a window. N8 destroys the window with a single brick of ill informed rhetoric, and it takes me much longer to clean up all the pieces and put the window back up. I should start cataloging N8's objections and refer to them by number so that I can just point to the number when the same crap comes up next time.

 

[fluff]

It's like throwing a brick through a window. N8 destroys the window with a single brick of ill informed rhetoric, and it takes me much longer to clean up all the pieces and put the window back up. I should start cataloging N8's objections and refer to them by number so that I can just point to the number when the same crap comes up next time.

I think you may be the only one left who can still be bothered. But I'm glad someone can. Personally I'm sure N8's post is a pile of **** but I just do not have the time to gather the necessary refuting data.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I think you may be the only one left who can still be bothered. But I'm glad someone can. Personally I'm sure N8's post is a pile of **** but I just do not have the time to gather the necessary refuting data.

Yeah, it took me some time to put together that stuff, and I didn't even tackle all the erroneous claims. It's a lot of work.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Algore is a joke and global warming alarmists are to.

 

[fluff]

Algore is a joke and global warming alarmists are to.

Global warming scientists are to what? Come on, finish your sentence.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Global warming scientists are to what? Come on, finish your sentence.

activist scientists you mean?

 

[fluff]

activist scientists you mean?

Actually I meant alarmists... as in "global warming alarmists are to" I just wondered what the next word was supposed to be.

 

[Changleen]

Algore is a joke and global warming alarmists are to.

 

[DaveW]

The good (?) ship SS N8 apears to have struck an global warming Iceburg and is sinking.

 

[ragin-sagin]

Algore is a joke and global warming alarmists are to.

Sometimes I wonder if you are actually a pre-programmed Con-bot-troll that just spits out random, inflammatory comments with no basis of fact or hints of reality. Go on, say something about Hillary now!! I know you want to!

 

[N8 v2.0]

Sometimes I wonder if you are actually a pre-programmed Con-bot-troll that just spits out random, inflammatory comments with no basis of fact or hints of reality. Go on, say something about Hillary now!! I know you want to!

Hillary has more balls than you?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Algore is a joke and global warming alarmists are to.

And, we see what the deniers like N8 are reduced to. In the face of ever mounting data and evidence, they must cling to their cognitive dissonance and fling abuse (like a monkey flinging poo) and believe that somehow it makes for a cogent argument. Sad, really.

 

[N8 v2.0]

And, we see what the deniers like N8 are reduced to. In the face of ever mounting data and evidence, they must cling to their cognitive dissonance and fling abuse (like a monkey flinging poo) and believe that somehow it makes for a cogent argument. Sad, really.

Not!

5

 

[N8 v2.0]

And, we see what the deniers like N8 are reduced to. In the face of ever mounting data and evidence, they must cling to their cognitive dissonance and fling abuse (like a monkey flinging poo) and believe that somehow it makes for a cogent argument. Sad, really.

So why are you not living in an Earthship then???

http://www.earthshipbiotecture.com/greater_world.html

http://www.earthshipbiotecture.com/newsalepage.html

 

[Old Man G Funk]

So why are you not living in an Earthship then???

http://www.earthshipbiotecture.com/greater_world.html

http://www.earthshipbiotecture.com/newsalepage.html

Why are you still an idiot after having explained so many things to you? Oh yeah, cognitive dissonance.