O.T. Many Scientists Debunk Gore!

There have been many stories published as of late that debunk Gore's movie.
You know the movie that most of the scientists that the AP quoted have NOT
even seen!

"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".

"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. Wibj-rn KarlÈn, 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 KarlÈn 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,"
KarlÈn 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."

KarlÈn 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 KarlÈn

Dr. *** 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." http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

"In a letter to the New York Times (published March 1, 2001), Dr. S. Fred
Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of
Virginia, responded to the editorial. Doctor Singer had devised the
satellite technology currently used for measuring stratospheric ozone, was
the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, and is
internationally known for his work on energy and environmental issues:

"Before putting pressure on the White House to act .shouldn't we be asking
whether global warming is really happening? The Kilimanjaro ice cap is not a
thermometer. It may well be melting, but this is simply a delayed
consequence of a natural climate warming during the early part of the 20th
century. Moreover, it will continue to melt as long as the climate doesn't
return to the temperatures of the Little Ice Age of past centuries."

Dr. Singer then concludes his letter with this paragraph of particular
interest in light of recent NAS proclamations:

"The National Academy of Sciences published a report last year that
defines the geographic regions of warming and cooling during the last 20
years. Surface measurements of East Africa show no warming trend. Weather
satellites show a pronounced cooling trend of the atmosphere there. No one
has questioned these data."

"Perhaps another opinion will help clarify matters. In her 11/24/2003
article for Nature Magazine, "African Ice Under Wraps," Betsy Mason states:

"The celebrated ice cap on Africa's loftiest peak could vanish within 20
years, taking with it a unique scientific resource. Although it's tempting
to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that
deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit.
Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No
longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong
equatorial sunshine."

So, while the problem is, indeed, anthropogenic, it is not a byproduct of
our combustion, but rather of our consumption?

. and all of the people some of the time .

In 2004, as though to add further fuel to the global fire, The Royal
Meteorological Society, in its International Journal Of Climatology,
published "Modern Glacier Retreat on Kilimanjaro as Evidence of Climate
Change: Observations and Facts", which found that:

"A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century
and the ensuing drier climatic conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat
on Kilimanjaro. Future investigations using the concept as a governing
hypothesis will require research at different climatological scales."

"So let's recap this shoddy flimflam which Gore is playing. Consider
that each of these scientific entities holds a uniquely divergent opinion
regarding the cause(s) of the Kilimanjaro melting:

. The scientists referred to the New York Times article;

. The scientist who was the first director of the U.S. Weather
Satellite Service;

. The National Academy of Sciences;

. The Royal Meteorological Society;

. Science reporter Betsy Mason.

And, yet, this grifter standing before those slides, himself lacking any
scientific - let alone climatological - credentials, implores us to believe
that he and he alone holds the truth, convenient or otherwise. Fortunately,
while he does "fool some of the people all of the time," he lacks the color,
wit, imagination, and personality required to ever "fool all of the people
some of the time."
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5618

"Gore begins by insisting that the scientific argument over the truth of the
matter is over; climate scientists, he asserts, are virtually unanimous in
endorsing it. Among the thousands of predictions on the subject, moreover,
he invariably opts for the worst-case scenarios. The increase in the
quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is caused, to an important
extent, by human "pollution," and this is the cause of a dangerous increase
in the planet's surface temperature. That, in turn, is causing glaciers, and
the great ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica, to melt. This will
inevitably result in the disastrous flooding of coastal areas all over the
globe, and all sorts of ecological upsets (e.g. the extinction of the polar
bear).

The trouble is that all of the statements in the last paragraph above are
subject to challenge, and in several cases, are almost certainly false.
Among the many systematic attacks being waged against the spurious case for
global warming, one of the deadliest and most effective is a weekly report
available on the Internet, called "The Week That Was" (TWTW). The author is
the formidable S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences
at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather
Satellite Service. Each week, Singer summarizes or reprints the most recent
studies debunking global warming, with generous references to still more
information. In TWTW for June 17, he demolishes Gore's contentions, one by
one.

The basic flaw in the argument for global warming is its assumption that the
Earth's surface temperature is a constant, and that, if it threatens to vary
in some inconvenient direction, mankind's puny efforts are capable of
maintaining it within a degree or two of its present level.

The truth is that the Earth's temperature is always changing to some extent,
up or down. Within historic memory, the canals of Venice froze solid during
the medieval Little Ice Age, and Greenland was verdant enough, during a warm
spell, to earn its (currently) wildly inappropriate name. Over longer
geological periods, the Arctic has sported palm trees (no polar bears then!)
and the latitude of Connecticut was under a mile-thick layer of ice. Just
now, according to Dr. Singer, we are seeing a warming trend of about
one-tenth of a degree centigrade per decade, or roughly a degree per
century." http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15666

"The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time,
partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms
and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We
are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last
10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90
per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and
generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that
a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely
more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle
warming."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&s***=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

"To those unfamiliar with the global warming controversy, Gore's one-sided
movie may appear compelling. Pictures of melting glaciers, ominous
temperature graphs and cartoons for the science-impaired - one features
Mister Sunbeam trapped by the Greenhouse Gas bullies - give the impression
that the planet is doomed unless we cede control to global warming
alarmists.

"We are recklessly, mindlessly destroying the Earth. As Lincoln said, 'We
must disenthrall ourselves. And then we will save our country.' And our
planet," Gore said in a statement.

"Reckless" and "mindless" are certainly some of the terms that occurred to
me after watching Gore's slide show. Some glaciers are receding, but others
(omitted from his slides) are advancing. No one knows what causes glaciers
to advance and retreat - the physics are complex and much more is involved
than simply air temperature.

University of Virginia climatologist Pat Michaels points out, for example,
that, "Glaciers [in Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska] have been receding
ever since John Muir first publicized them in the 19th century" - well
before the advent of significant manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

Gore's graphs imply that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide
historically have preceded increases in global temperature. But a 2005 study
in the journal Science reported that higher temperatures may actually have
preceded increased carbon dioxide levels in the past - the opposite of the
global warming hypothesis.

Were that fact mentioned in Al Gore's movie, the Kyoto Protocol might not
survive its second anniversary."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185171,00.html

"Climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the sun
rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth.

Climatologists and astronomers speaking at the American Association for the
Advancement of Science meeting in Philadelphia say the present warming may
be unusual - but a mini ice age could soon follow.

The sun provides all the energy that drives our climate, but it is not the
constant star it might seem.

Careful studies over the last 20 years show that its overall brightness and
energy output increases slightly as sunspot activity rises to the peak of
its 11-year cycle.

And individual cycles can be more or less active.

The sun is currently at its most active for 300 years.

That, say scientists in Philadelphia, could be a more significant cause of
global warming than the emissions of greenhouse gases that are most often
blamed.

The researchers point out that much of the half-a-degree rise in global
temperature over the last 120 years occurred before 1940 - earlier than the
biggest rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

Using ancient tree rings, they show that 17 out of 19 warm spells in the
last 10,000 years coincided with peaks in solar activity."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm



.

Quantcast