More TRUTH about Al's movie

LOL MY desperation, huh? Just add that to the list of mental illnesses you are attempting to project onto others...

The funny thing about that Wegman study you have adopted as your new baby is he pretends to be interested only in the integity of the process of scientific review itself, but conspicuously makes no mention of distortions and lack of review on the side of the skeptics.

You have barely been able to find ANY peer reviewed studies that support your position at all, nevermind one that would clear the bar of Mr. Wegman. That's what makes it that much funnier to see you attempt to use this line of defense...

And THEN you ice the cake by offering up opinions from proven liars like Van Storch!

Your shameless hypocrisy is rather entertaining, though, and only further damages what little credibility you may have been hanging onto....

haha

independant source
Greenhouse theory smashed by biggest stone
According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil. Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface.

Shaidurov has used a detailed analysis of the mean temperature change by year for the last 140 years and explains that there was a slight decrease in temperature until the early twentieth century. This flies in the face of current global warming theories that blame a rise in temperature on rising carbon dioxide emissions since the start of the industrial revolution. Shaidurov, however, suggests that the rise, which began between 1906 and 1909, could have had a very different cause, which he believes was the massive Tunguska Event, which rocked a remote part of Siberia, northwest of Lake Baikal on the 30th June 1908

Russian Acadamy of Science is not a right wing source.

bbc news
Error strikes 'BBC climate model'

Climateprediction.net uses the power of thousands of ordinary PCs
A "major error" has been discovered in the world's biggest online climate prediction project, backed by the BBC.
The fault in a Climateprediction.net model launched in February causes temperatures in past climates to rise quicker than seen in real observations.


Been fixed, but getting bad data for years. oops.

more trouble for models
Global warming challenged


Two UR studies fault computer models used to determine threat.


By Matthew Daneman
Staff Writer


(August 2, 2004) — Global warming is hot.
It starred in the recent Hollywood disaster flick The Day After Tomorrow. The nation's largest state, California, now has a proposal to cut carbon dioxide given off by cars and trucks 30 percent over the next decade. Canada, likewise, is looking at higher fuel efficiency standards to cut down on such greenhouse gases given off by cars.

But a pair of papers by a University of Rochester scientist in the July 9 issue of Geophysical Research Letters hammers at shortcomings in the computer models and temperature readings that scientists have been using to predict how carbon dioxide will affect the Earth's temperature.

“The old rule is garbage in, garbage out,†said David H. Douglass, a professor of physics and astronomy. “I don't know what's wrong (with the models), but it must be that the basic physics has not been put in properly.â€

The first paper looks at temperature readings at various heights in the Earth's atmosphere over the past 20 years against what the leading computer models predicted. According to the study, the computer models indicate that temperatures in the upper atmosphere should be rising; yet the opposite is happening.

The second study took various temperature readings from weather balloons and satellites — data provided by the National Center for Atmospheric Research — to try to rectify a longtime gap between temperatures recorded at ground level and temperatures recorded by other satellites. That gap amounts to about one degree.

According to the study, the new temperature readings seem to back up the other satellite readings and show an Earth about a degree cooler than ground-level readings had found. Both those sources indicate that the planet is getting warmer, but to a far less degree than noted by surface thermometers.

Douglass said the holes pointed to by his studies are fatal flaws in the notion that human activity — from industrial smokestacks to car exhaust — is causing global warming.

“There is a warming over the last 100 or so years,†he said. “(But) the change cannot be assigned to carbon dioxide. The stories you see about global warming all originate from predictions by models. If the models are wrong … then the conclusion is almost obvious. Why worry about global warming if it comes from a discredited theory?â€

But that is reading too much into the studies' findings, said Charles Hall, a professor of systems ecology at State University College of Environmental Science and Forestry.

“They've come up with something interesting,†Hall said.

“I certainly don't see any way this substantially undermines all global climate models,†he added.

The computer models, which extrapolate what will happen in the Earth's atmosphere based on mountains of data and measurements, are backed up with lots of observable evidence, such as melting glaciers, Hall said.

And while the models are imperfect, they cannot be discounted, said Jose Maliekal, associate dean of earth sciences at SUNY Brockport. “That doesn't mean the models are totally wrong. The modelers themselves acknowledge some of the major issues they haven't solved,†such as the roles clouds and soot play in affecting climate change.

“Even imperfect models can help us project things,†Maliekal said.

“Absent something better, we have to do the best we can.â€

Douglass was lead author on both papers; UR graduate student Benjamin D. Pearson was one of the co-authors on both papers .

None of these are oil industry or bush related links. I know you will say it is just a few. But I can give more. And notice this is from a Democratic sourse and to debunk the claims they tell us it's ok to use imperfect models. Comments?

Ass Boil, your last post was misleading.......it makes it sound like NCDike had some credibility to hold on to, or to damage.

Or we could focus on this whopper!!!

AL GORE TALKING TO THE SIERRA CLUB!
There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?


I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are , and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

in fact it seems typical for that side of the debate.

"To capture the public imagination,
we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
make simplified dramatic statements
and little mention of any doubts one might have.
Each of us has to decide the right balance
between being effective,
and being honest."

- Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider
( in interview for "Discover" magagzine, Oct 1989)

and if his name if familiar to the older folks here it may be from this:

Just as with Global Warming, we find Schneider in the vanguard of the Global Cooling doomsayers during the 1970s.

It was only when global temperatures took an upward turn around 1980 that Schneider and others quickly made a career change and became passionate advocates of impending catastrophe, only this time from warming, not cooling. But then, opportunism is a trait of politicians rather than scientists.

During the Ice Age Scare of the 1970s, Schneider was one of it's foremost advocates. He published a book titled "The Genesis Strategy" at this time, warning of the coming glaciation, and wrote glowing a testimonial on the back cover of a popular `Ice Age' book of the time - (Ponte, Lowell. "The Cooling", Prentice Hall, N.J., USA, 1976), in which the author claimed that the climatic cooling from 1940 to the 1970s was but the precursor to the main event - the coming Ice Age.

Schneider was one of the first in the scientific community to warn of the impending Ice Age with this paper -

Schneider S. & Rasool S., "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141

Sorry, TT, but there is absolutely nothing wrong or deceptive about what Gore said. The fact that you are trying to spin it as such says a lot about your own honesty on the subject...

The operative term in Gore's statement is "factual presentations". What exactly is your problem with "factual presentations"? The possibility of too many facts getting ou there?

Please explain....

That is one scientist from the Russian Academy of Sciences.
It is interesting to note that the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Yuri S. Osipov, President, Russian Academy of Sciences) is a Member of the Union of Concerned scientist.
http://dieoff.org/page123.htm


Also his paper is unpublished which means it has not been subjected to peer review.
http://www.mongabay.com/news-index/index-climate_change-Q12006.html

A controversial new theory attributes climate change not to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels but water vapor. In an unpublished paper, Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences argues that the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientists over the past hundred years could be due to atmospheric changes resulting from the Tunguska Event, a massive explosion over Siberia on the June 30th, 1908 that is thought to have resulted from an asteroid or comet entering the earth's atmosphere and exploding

Man, if that quote doesn't bother you at all, then I don't think you are open mined about this discussion. An over representation of factual presentations is a lie. Gore said it's ok to lie about this because of the "category 5 denial" of the people.

If bush said that about iraq you know you would be pasting it all over the place. Be honest - with us and yourself.

It is under review now to be published. And the Russian Academy of Sciences does not buy the human component of global warming. I will dig up a link to back that up.

not quite what I was looking for but this was interesting and published.

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/NationalPost.htm

Six eminent researchers from the Russian Academy of Science and the Israel Space Agency have just published a startling paper in one of the world's leading space science journals. The team of solar physicists claims to have come up with compelling evidence that changes in cosmic ray intensity and variations in solar activity have been driving much of the Earth's climate.
They even provide a testable hypothesis, predicting that amplified cosmic ray intensity will lead to an increase of the global cloud cover which, according to their calculations, will result in "some small global cooling over the next couple of years."

Baloney.

Where exactly did he say it was okay to lie? He said "FACTUAL". His point was that Americans need to be beat over the head with more facts than most people.

"Over representation" means they need to get their case OVER represented in the media to get the message across. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I'll be waiting for proof he said it was okay to lie....

Read this for comprehension. Look at it in context. he explains a starting point problem that must be resolved. And a solution. Scare them into action.

No, you don't understand AB.....Gore said it is OK to lie, so now we should disregard all the scientific facts about global warming and go back to arguing about gay marriage.....that is far more important then the planet earth...........

You have to be extremely naive or in major denial to think that we are not having a negative effect on the earth.

Can you honestly say that if Bush had said the same about the run up to Iraq that you wouldn't be all over it? Honestly?

I will admit that i "would be all over it" but one big difference is that G Dummy would not have had any factual information for the war in Iraq that he could "over represent". That's the big difference is that Gore is using factual information in his argument....something this country has not been use to for 6 years.

WTF does this even mean? Non sequitur city. You would probably be surprised to know I support gay marriage, what the fuck has that got to do with me? Goes double when it's two hot chicks.

Never said we are not effecting the earth. The earth is ok though. It's the ecosystem we need to worry about. But lets be honest about the issues and not use some unproven science to force changes. The planet has warmed a bit, but we are far from KNOWING that humans have caused it.

Personally I think that quote in an interview about his movie makes whats in it suspect. I admit I have not seen it, probably will when it makes it to HBO, but just for fun.

I don't consider myself a zealot, and I think he fucked himself on this. Just imagine what the far right wing guys will think of the statement.

"unproven science?" OK you can call it an unproven science if you want, but it would not hurt if the country took some initiative, people were still arguing if the ozone layer existed when we passed legislation and wiped out CFC's. It would not be hard to make a few minimal changes that would have large long term effects......and the gay marriage thing was more of a shot at the Bush administration then you...sorry about that....

OH man this argument has been a waste of time if you haven't seen the movie. See it, it may change a few of your thoughts.....It did for me, I was suspect of the movie and also felt it would hurt Al Gore. But I have to tell you he comes off as a good caring person, he could have used the film to bash the current administration, but he doesnt (he has 2 jokes). Also it is ridiculus if anybody cares what the far right thinks, generally the further right you lean is a sign of 2 things, lower IQ or special interests.

I think he's using it for his next campaign. And I have been debating the merits of global warming science, not the movie itself. Gore's quote in the one exception, but it puts the movie in context for me. Sorry if I'm a bit off topic.

Ask and ye shall receive: Is the...most famous theory a crock?[/html]

NOTE: I am not saying that is a crock. Just finding you some scientists who think it is. Interesting little quote in there though:

"In spite of their many differences, common themes do emerge: resentment of academic 'elites,' suspicion and resentment of the entire peer-review process in the mainstream scientific journals and a deep strain of paranoia about government involvement in scientific projects."

In reading as much of all this article quoting mumbo jumbo as my brain can stand, one thing seems to make sense to me. If there is no consensus about humans having a negative effect on global warming, it's probably safe to assume that there's no consensus that they have NOT had a negative effect on global warming.

I'll say again what I said back on page one or two or thereabouts: thankfully, no matter how bad we could possibly fuck up this planet, the planet in and of itself will be fine. We merely fuck it up for us. As Carlin says, the Earth will shake us off like a bad case of fleas if we become enough of a problem.

Peer -reviewed...what do you know about peer-reviewed studies? Besides calling into serious doubts the methods used by Mann et all, he also points out that the 'peer-review' that you seem to have such a hard on about is a fraud also. Basically, the global alarmists peer review their own work !! HAHA. And what has become clear with Mann, in almost every article, study I have read is that it is extremely difficult, or impossible to get his data/methods from him so that real peer review can take place. Everytime you bluster about peer review, you expose yourself as even more of a fraud. Oreske's was exposed, Mann has been exposed, the IPCC report is a fraud....all of your real sources have been taken apart by scientists. You pretty much have no legs to stand on.

But ohh, thats right...we have a consensus...I forgot.

TT, I think you are a reasonable guy, but for some reason you are choosing to completely twist this particular subject into something that is not there.

Nowhere did Gore say it was okay to lie. Nowhere did he even IMPLY it was okay to lie. The fact that he uses the term "factual presentations" means he is interested in presenting FACTS, not lies. That is very clear from his statement. You are trying to attach a meaning that is not there to serve your interests.

And using your own example of the Bush administration and the run up to Iraq war, several Bush officials made statements they KNEW were not true, or deliberately exaggerated things to make their point. Donald Rumsfeld said he "KNEW" where the WMD was, Dick Cheney, George Bush and Condi all said without a doubt Saddam was working with al qaeda. Those are all statements they knew to be untrue when they said them. THAT is the definition of lying, my friend.

Lets take this nonsense 1 at a time...

There are very few if any 'scientific facts' in the movie, and the ones that are have been disputed. You might not see the disputes on CNN, or read them on DailyKos...but they have been disputed by a significant number of scientist...Remember, AlGore is a politician.

You mean like being on the wrong side of defeating the USSR in the cold war (the left wanted us to disarm, and didn't want Reagan to be so mean) Or like being on the wrong side in the war on terror? Or being on the wrong side of tax cuts?? Or being on the wrong side of eminent domain?? I can go on and on....

Not at all, and that has not happened. You cheapen their sacrifice by implying that it did happen.

What about the choice of the baby to live?? Who speaks for him/her. If a women doesn't want to get pregnant she should make her choice then. Not killing an innocent baby after the fact. Do you have the right to murder someone because they are an inconvenience to you?

Blah Blah Blah...liberal talking points. The left has done far more harm to the poor than the right could ever dream of. A liberal says here is a fish, vote for me, and I will make sure the government gives you a fish tomorrow. The conservative says, here is how to fish, what you don't need for your family, I will buy from you tomorrow.

The studies discredit themsleves. They are part of a scare campaign to drive the US to drastic action. When you actually look at the facts, there is no need for action, the studies are a fraud, and at the very least we just don't know enough yet. Faulty studies with dubious conclusions won't make the environment any better.

No, I spend most of my day working, enjoying life with my family, or reading. Please show where I have 'made up a poll' ?

.

I already do that, but to keep down on the electric bill. This simplistic answer from you shows that you really don't understand the issue.

Wow...it's an even sadder day when someone of your limited knowledge and understanding would get to make the decision on who gets to vote.

Yes, but I don't think you do

I was right, you don't.

Wow...it's an even sadder day when someone of your limited knowledge and understanding would get to make the decision on who gets to vote.

Well, for starters I know how to read:

How about this one:

Wegman's main criticism is that Mann has worked closely with all of the people who reviewed his work. *GASP*

If that is the standard you are attempting to set, you will be forced to throw out all of your own sources, dummy. Baliunas, Seitz, Soon, Lindzen, Robinson, Singer all have been working together since their early days as paid tobacco shills. The only thing that has changed is their employer, which is now big oil and energy companies. They all work together on every project. Does that rule out their opinions in your little mind?

Oh, and don't forget Lindzen participated in the IPCC. I guess using your logic that makes him even more of a fraud, huh? Guess we won't be seeing any of those names anymore.....

LMAO