Re: Don't Believe the Hype Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:30:01 -0400, Dano wrote:


"Jack Bauer" <Jack_Bauer@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44a93464$0$9915$88260bb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The evidence is in on algore's movie - its a fraud!



That's all you've got to refute all those other scientists? You are the
fraud. Reasonable people can disagree. You are not a reasonable or
reasoning person.

Who do you think might have paid off the experts on the other side of
this? The all powerful alternative energy cartel?


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).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of
temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and
SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say
"how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the
next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period
of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous
(and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious
additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918
and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and
that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that
human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide
is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature
changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent
scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when
the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train
of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such
short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the
public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and
magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist
letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each
such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could",
"probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many
involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and
principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of
the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the
public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose
not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists.
Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science
bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how
accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is
not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now
infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the
20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and
co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the
climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian
statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be
deeply flawed.

There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail
from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the
so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against
speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.

First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on
contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of
public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science
press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform
with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive
funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have
spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are
expected to listen.

On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir
David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that
Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end
of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron]
Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that
climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop
Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science,
has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming
and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts.
By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the
great and good become the small and silly.

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic,
fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for
the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when
it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year
cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the
pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last
three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes
were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the
average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to
be a period of stasis.

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.

The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it
draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and
the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the
depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from
science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed
organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the
Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have
been backed.

As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to
join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and
Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development
of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least,
some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency
and reducing pollution.

Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body,
designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership
receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?

? Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland,
engaged in paleoclimate research


GORE'S HOT AIR

By KYLE SMITH

May 24, 2006 -- AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH

AL GORE'S global-warming documentary, "An Incon venient Truth," is sure to
get an Oscar nomination for Best Documentary, but Gore should campaign for
Best Actor, too.

Avoiding the usual vein-popping diatribes, he comes across as learned,
calm and folksy. But much of what Gore says in this slide show he gives to
people whose minds are not yet fully formed (undergraduates, actors) is
absurd, and his assertions often contradict each other.

He implies that no reputable scientists dispute anything he says -
basically, that the ice caps are melting and people on the 50th floor of
the Empire State Building had better learn to swim. But there is wide
disagreement about whether humans are causing global warming (climate
change preceded the invention of the Escalade) and about whether we should
be worried about the trends. Look carefully at Gore's charts and you'll
see that the worst horrors take place in the future of his imagination.

His implication that he is our only hope - every ticket bought for this
movie amounts to a soft-money contribution to his 2008 campaign - is
ridiculous. He and his friends were in charge for eight years. His charts
say global warming got worse in that time. The environment doesn't seem to
care whether the president is a Texas oilman or the Man from Hope.

Global warming hasn't noticed that we got the lead out of our gasoline or
that Stage One smog days in Los Angeles fell from 121 in 1977 to zero in
2004. All regulations and taxes to date have done nothing. Does this hint
that pollution isn't the cause?

Gore claims, with pie-chart-in-the-sky dreaminess, that unspecified
measures can reduce emissions to 1970 levels. He assesses the tradeoff
between the economy and the environment with the kind of buffoonery you'd
expect in a Marxist comic book, displaying a cartoon of a scale with Earth
on one side and bars of gold on the other. "OK, on one side we have gold
bars," he says. "Mmm, mmm, don't they look good!"

Why doesn't he get specific and replace the "gold bar" side of the scale
with, say, a $50,000 tax on SUVs? The ensuing destruction of the car
business would hurt blue-collar workers, not the rich. What if global
warming continued unabated? Gore's faith-based pessimism would lead him to
call for even more taxes.

People are skeptical about global warming because it builds up to the same
chorus as every other lefty hymn: more taxes, more hypocritical scolding
(the film is the brainchild of Larry David's wife, Laurie, part of the
community of people who drive a Prius to the private plane) and especially
more America-bashing.

Gore says that America, alone, is the problem. Taking us to China, he
ignores the filth spewed into the air by its coal-fired cities. He does
not meet with bronchitic citizens who wear surgical masks outdoors and
pause to hawk up brown gunk every few minutes. Instead, he tells us
America is lagging behind. "China," he says, "is on the cutting edge" of
environmentalism. Nonsense.

Gore is a dangerous evangelist for whom all roads lead to his sole, holy
revelation. Remember how his son was injured in a car accident, the story
he told at the 1992 convention? He's still telling it, and what was once
touching has become exploitative. This time, the accident's meaning is
that he wondered whether the Earth would still be there for his son.
(Never mind that earlier in the film, he dates his eco-awakening to his
Harvard years).

A sister who smoked and died of lung cancer? The lesson is that those who
used to deny that smoking caused disease were wrong, so anyone who doubts
catastrophic global warming must also be wrong.

Still not convinced that Gore's mind has only one emission? "We have to
think differently about war," he says, referring to environmental effects
of weapons. "We can't just mindlessly continue the patterns of the past."
It's a chilling statement: Even when bombs are flying, Gore promises to
measure CO2 first.

The man's shamelessness is astounding when he compares himself to
Churchill, but that's not the worst of it. The final shot of Gore shows
him bravely silhouetted against the cosmos, a lone figure tenderly
surveying the firmament. The job he really wants, no recount can give him.

kyle.smith@xxxxxxxxxx




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Doom is at the Door
    ... The world's top scientists warned last week that ... > climate change is taking place today, ... > global warming, comes into force after a seven-year delay. ... as the seas rise dramatically. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Scientists meet in NYC to challenge Gore, U.N.
    ... Global warming is a natural process, not likely the result of human ... scientists in papers presented at the 2008 International Conference on ... Climate Change, which concluded in New York City today. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Scientists meet in NYC to challenge Gore, U.N.
    ... Global warming is a natural process, not likely the result of human ... scientists in papers presented at the 2008 International Conference on ... Climate Change, which concluded in New York City today. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • O.T. Many Scientists Debunk Gore!
    ... You know the movie that most of the scientists that the AP quoted have NOT ... what do world climate experts actually think about the ... ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. ... whether global warming is really happening? ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Do you believe man is responsible for global warming? Welcome to Fantasy Land!!
    ... I must have hit the big time if scientists are listening to what I have to ... There has always been global warming, there will always be global warming, ... determined that climate change held great promise as a policy issue. ...
    (soc.culture.filipino)