An Inconvenient Truth

[stump832]

I like the new old iceman.

[Tippster]

The dudgeon is back. Bring on the vitriol!

[Cono Este]

Everyone's giving you a pass, but in my humble opinion you are a fucking moron. You don't understand politics, you don't understand the environment, you don't understand global trade and you also sound like a fucking racist.

Go back to Tacoma where you'll fit right in, lady.

[cj001f]

I'm guessing Iceman didn't make "the list"

[Cono Este]

Its not my list. And I was only guessing she did for speaking her mind. I think it was a good guess.

[Dirty Hoar]

So... Marilyn Manson made a movie???

[P_McPoser]

Speaking of some inconvenient truths.....













Boy, that "global" warming sure is widespread.....
My point is that you can cherry pick data supporting either side very easily.

As for those you like to make the hurricane/global warming connection...Suck this:

US HURRICANE STRIKES BY DECADE 1870-2000

24----------------------------------------*
23----------------------------------------*
22---------*------------------------------*
21----*----*------------------------------*
20----*----*----*---------*--------------*
19----*----*----*---------*---------*----*
18----*----*----*----*----*---------*----*
17----*----*----*----*----*---------*----*----*
16----*----*----*----*----*---------*----*----*
15----*----*----*----*----*---------*----*----*--------------*
14----*----*----*----*----*---------*----*----*----*---------*----*
13----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*---------*----*
12----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*
11----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*
10----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*
09----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*
08----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*
07----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*
06----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*
05----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*
04----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*
03----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*
02----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*
01----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*----*
00================================================ ========
1871 1881 1891 1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

edit: for graph formatting

[MassLiberal]

^^^^

That's the worst attempt at a counter argument I've ever seen.

Taking temperature averages at any given location is not the same as taking a global average. In fact it's so obviously misleading that a five year old could probably see through it.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Hey, Mcposer, you're a fucking idiot trying to pose as someone who can think. You can't.
That data proves nothing. Do you even understand the topic? If you think that data addresses global warming, you don't.

[Schmear]

So, Ice... is this the part where you come after me in a black helicopter?

Look on the bright side--at least he didn't threaten to skullfuck you.

[P_McPoser]

^^^^

That's the worst attempt at a counter argument I've ever seen.

Taking temperature averages at any given location is not the same as taking a global average. In fact it's so obviously misleading that a five year old could probably see through it.

It wasn't a counter argument. I'm just trying to say that not all data can be taken at face value.

Taking a "global average," without taking into account local environmental effects on temperature is just plain voodoo science.

Is the earth heating up? Probably. Is it our fault? Maybe. Is there irrefutable scientific evidence of the latter? Absolutlely not.

[cj001f]

Is there irrefutable scientific evidence of the latter? Absolutlely not.

Scientific evidence is never irrefutable if you've biases

[GoldMember]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

[Dexter Rutecki]

Christ, there hasn't been a peer-reviewed article that even questioned the fact that we're helping cause global warming in something like 10 years. So you're wrong, it is actually accepted as fact by those scientists who know about this stuff.
It's just not accepted as fact by oil companies/Bush-Halliburton, inc.

[P_McPoser]

Christ, there hasn't been a peer-reviewed article that even questioned the fact that we're helping cause global warming in something like 10 years. So you're wrong, it is actually accepted as fact by those scientists who know about this stuff.
It's just not accepted as fact by oil companies/Bush-Halliburton, inc.

Helping != Causing

[P_McPoser]

Christ, there hasn't been a peer-reviewed article that even questioned the fact that we're helping cause global warming in something like 10 years. So you're wrong, it is actually accepted as fact by those scientists who know about this stuff.
It's just not accepted as fact by oil companies/Bush-Halliburton, inc.

Read this, then discuss further (Link to article above in GoldMembers Post)
EDIT: Take with a grain of salt though, as it appears this may be a "nothing to see here, move along" right wing site like all them "THE SKY IS FALLING" left wing news sites.

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.

[Telenater]

Tom Harris wrote an OpEd piece contaning sound bites from scientists who are largely funded by (or part of) "conservative" thinktanks largely sponsored by pro-deregulation/antiregulation or pro-industry oriented companies/groups. Tom Harris is an environmental consultant who has been employed by many of these same companies.

I'm not sure there's much to discuss. When you privide peer reviewed articles that legitimately challenge the fundamental idea that humans are altering the climate on a large scale, I'll start listening more.

[mr_gyptian]

I like the new old iceman.

Imagine if Tacoma ran a lemonade stand.

[MassLiberal]

McPoser, the guy who wrote that just got a $500,000 grant from the coal industry.

[P_McPoser]

McPoser, the guy who wrote that just got a $500,000 grant from the coal industry.

Did you miss my disclaimer?

EDIT: Take with a grain of salt though, as it appears this may be a "nothing to see here, move along" right wing site like all them "THE SKY IS FALLING" left wing news sites.

[retirwntm]

McPoser, the guy who wrote that just got a $500,000 grant from the coal industry.

does the simple act of getting a grant from either an industry or other concerned group constitute illegitimacy as far as findings? i believe you mentioned something about an achilles' heel argument above (which seemed accurate).

some people believe we are doing irreparable damage to the environment, and think all harmful activities should be stopped immediately. this is unrealistic. some could give a fuck about the environment and will rape and pillage its resources to their benefit ad infinitum unless effective laws and enforcement mechanisms are created against doing so.

in the meantime, there does not seem to be much consensus as to the exact cause of global warming. IMO, it is impossible to imagine the burning of fossil fuels at ever increasing levels has not and is not damaging our environment in some fundamental way. i also can't imagine that any person with the ability to reason could deny we are doing harm to our environment. yet many people could rationalize the impact in an economic modality.

how many people are willing to sacrifice something precious to them in order to make a difference? how many people are willing to forego the use of their car? and if they do, and other developing countries do nothing to change their habits, nothing will change. this is an international game of chicken, where no one is willing to blink because they assume others will not make necessary changes.

without a real consensus as to the problem and a realistic solution, placed in an international framework of laws and controls, this issue is bound to go unresolved.

[MassLiberal]

How is that an achilles heal argument?

If your survival depends on you not believing something, you are going to come up with any rationalization you can to discredit it.

Once again, you state the fallacy that those who want us to confront Climate change want ebveryone to give up their cars and end technological progress. That's a giant load of shit. The only thing that is lacking to address this problem is political will, and that political will is lacking because there is large amounts of money seeding the doubt which obviously intelligent people such as yourself are repeating.

[Plakespear]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies , damned lies, and statistics."- Benjamin Disraeli

[retirwntm]

How is that an achilles heal argument?

If your survival depends on you not believing something, you are going to come up with any rationalization you can to discredit it.

Once again, you state the fallacy that those who want us to confront Climate change want ebveryone to give up their cars and end technological progress. That's a giant load of shit. The only thing that is lacking to address this problem is political will, and that political will is lacking because there is large amounts of money seeding the doubt which obviously intelligent people such as yourself are repeating.

wow...wasn't expecting both barrels loaded for bear. wasn't really trying to call you out either, other than to mention that a flawed argument is simply that...a failure in reasoning. IMO, simply calling a study's findings into question due to the funding of said study is not a valid reason, per se, to nullify the study. if it were flawed in some factual way, then, have at it. i'm not suggesting that where the money came from and intent/motivation should not be considered. i am suggesting it should not predetermine validity.

apologies if i drew upon a fallacy...because that was not my intent. what i meant to do was to illuminate the complexities of the issue. perhaps my examples were overly simplistic and extreme, therefore non-sensical to you. i argued poorly if you think i am simply resorting to being a mouthpiece for the establishment.

i think it is more involved than a lack of political will, though i don't doubt your point. i think the problem is one of genuine complexity, both scientific, economic, political (as you mention) and international. this is why i am reticent about any pandemic solution any time soon.

i do think the problem may be either lessened or solved at a grass roots level, where individuals and like minded communities will make changes that are beneficial due to choice/preference. once others see these changes as beneficial, they may want to make corresponding changes in their consumption habits as well. the results may proliferate.

you and i are in agreement, though, that "large amounts of money seeding the doubt which obviously intelligent people such as yourself are repeating". thanks for the cant and sarcasm, btw. but you are quite right that those in the position of power have the least to benefit and the most to lose in making any change to the status quo. i can't think of many situations where those who are in power do something to jeopardize it.

[retirwntm]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies , damned lies, and statistics."- Benjamin Disraeli

There are three sides to every story: yours, mine and the truth.