Scientists Reverse Stance On Global Warming
Obama: 50% Black; 50% White; 100% Unqualified
Bwahahahahahahahahahah
hahahahahahhhahahaha
_______
Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
Michael Asher (Blog) - July 16, 2008 9:35 PM
The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly
50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is
now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced
global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the
validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had
previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."
In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There
is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people
who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2
emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for
global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."
The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord
Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the
rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause
-- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity
implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global
climate.
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and
Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's
paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and
"extensive errors"
In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover
that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the
central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper,
systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began
to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing
and obscuring its method."
According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results,
"in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity
conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly
low."
Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher
administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the
Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more
active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ...
Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same
time as Earth."
http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+
APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm
T. Keating
50% White; 100% Unqualified) wrote:
>
>Bwahahahahahahahahahah
>hahahahahahhhahahaha
>_______
>
> Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
>Michael Asher (Blog) - July 16, 2008 9:35 PM
>
snip... from aps.org website..
"APS Climate Change Statement"
"APS Position Remains Unchanged"
http://www.aps.org/
"The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on
climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on
November 18, 2007:"
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the
atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."
"An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online
newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of
APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that
"Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This
newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed."
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
"Climate Change"
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the
atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. "
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring."
Lloyd
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:59:55 GMT, s...@nospam.org (Obama: 50% Black;
Don't be too hard on the original poster. He never went to APS for
anything; he got his post off a right-wing blog or right-wing news
site. After all, APS is a scientific group and he's afraid science
would just make his poor little brain hurt!
z
>
> - Show quoted text -
got that right. science and reality in general both have well known
anti-Bush agendas.
z
Unqualified) wrote:
> The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord
> Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the
> rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause
> -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity
> implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global
> climate.
>
> Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and
> Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's
> paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and
> "extensive errors"
>
> In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover
> that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the
> central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper,
> systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began
> to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing
> and obscuring its method."
>
> According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results,
> "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity
> conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly
> low."
Monckton, hahahahaha. the only member of the House of Lords who is not
actually a member of the House of Lords:
"Finally, you may wonder why it is that a member of the Upper House of
the United Kingdom legislature, wholly unconnected with and unpaid by
the corporation that is the victim of your lamentable letter, should
take the unusual step of calling upon you as members of the Upper
House of the United States legislature either to withdraw what you
have written or resign your sinecures." (Monckton's letter to Snowe,
Rockefeller on global warming
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Moncktons_letter_to_Snowe_Rockefeller_on_1218.html)
when in fact, no Monckton in the alphabetical list of members of the
House of Lords :
"Mitchell Lord Labour
Molyneaux of Killead Lord Crossbench
Monson Lord Crossbench
Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Conservative"
http://www.parliament.uk/directories/house_of_lords_information_office/alphabetical_list_of_members.cfm#M
because nowadays the House of Lords is elected from the vastly
increasing hereditary peerage, and when Mockton ran, he got **ZERO**
votes from his, literally, peers:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/HoLNotice070307.pdf
Maybe it slipped his mind while he was concentrating on weightier
matters.
like the Falklands War:
"For a start, in this adventure, in which he routinely wore a bowler
hat, Monckton won the Falklands conflict from his armchair after
suggesting, he claims, to the Prime Minister that the best way to
undermine the Argies was to have the SAS introduce a mild bacillus
into the water supply in Port Stanley. 'I can tell you from experience
there is nothing more demoralising than having the trots in a trench!'
He believes, laughing a little wildly, she took him up on this idea
and the rest is history."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/may/06/observerreview.climatechange
and correcting Wikipedia:
On June 6, 2007, someone with IP address 81.77.248.148 added this
passage to Christopher Monckton's wikipedia page (Wikipedia forbids
individuals from writing their own Wikipedia pages, for obvious
reasons):
"Monckton has been published in academic journals on the subject of
climate change and his principal calculations have been reviewed and
found accurate by one of the IPCC's expert reviewers. Monckton is
currently studying higher mathematics at university level. The
Guardian was compelled to publish a correction the day after one of
its columnists had criticized Monckton's climate-change analysis as
scientifically inaccurate, and is reported to have paid Monckton
£50,000 in damages."
A few hours later, someone with the same IP address complained to
Wikipedia:
"I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Please remove the article
about me, pending action in the Court of Session for libel. I have
made repeated attempts to prevent or correct these libels, but to no
avail. The action will be filed in 14 days. If anyone from Wikipedia
wishes to contact me to discuss resolution before the action is filed,
I may be contacted at monck...@mail.com. If I am not contacted, the
action will be lodged without further notice, and an application will
be made for service outside the jurisdiction where necessary. ...."
causing this email to be sent:
"Dear Lord Monckton,
I hope this finds you well. I am puzzled to hear that someone who
identifies himself as you has been claiming on Wikipedia that the
Guardian has paid you £50,000 in damages as a result of an article I
wrote. Could you please let me know whether or not it was you who made
this claim, and if so what the meaning of it is.
Yours Sincerely,
George Monbiot"
You really have to read the rest of the exchange. It's too good for a
mere summary.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/10/03/did-lord-monckton-fabricate-a-claim-on-his-wikipedia-page/
but of course, he's mostly busy with his groundbreaking research into
AGW. He has facts at his fingertips available to nobody else:
"This would not be of much concern if the WSJ wasn't such an
influential paper in the US. However, the extent of its isolation on
this issue is evident from the amusing reliance on the error-prone
Christopher Monckton. They quote him saying that the sea level rise
predictions were much smaller than in IPCC TAR (no they weren't), that
the human contribution to recent changes has been 'cut by a third' (no
it hasn't), and that the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) was written
by politicians (no it wasn't - the clue is in the name)."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/wsj-editorial-board-head-still-buried-in-the-sand/
> Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher
and as a good Thatcher scientist, he lets the free market determine
the truth:
"I was selling the house anyway and they asked me if I would be
willing to tell people I was selling the house because I was afraid
somebody might solve the puzzle too fast. I said 'yes'. They said,
'Don't you mind being made to look an absolute prat', and I said, 'No
- I'm quite used to that'. History is full of stories that aren't
actually true. We sold shed-loads of extra puzzles and I made an
handsome profit - and I sold the house as well."
(Monckton interviewed in The Scotsman)
50% Black; 50% White; 100% Clueless
Yessuh, another cast of thousands of scientists who see thru the
socialists' hoax.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:07:30 -0700 (PDT), z <gzuc...@snail-mail.net>
wrote:
>On Jul 18, 6:59=A0am, s...@nospam.org (Obama: 50% Black; 50% White; 100%
>Unqualified) wrote:
>> The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord
>> Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the
>> rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause
>> -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. =A0 A low sensitivity
>> implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global
>> climate.
>>
>> Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and
>> Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's
>> paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and
>> "extensive errors"
>>
>> In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover
>> that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the
>> central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper,
>> systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began
>> to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing
>> and obscuring its method." =A0
>>
>> According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results,
>> "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity
>> conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly
>> low."
>
>Monckton, hahahahaha. the only member of the House of Lords who is not
>actually a member of the House of Lords:
>
>"Finally, you may wonder why it is that a member of the Upper House of
>the United Kingdom legislature, wholly unconnected with and unpaid by
>the corporation that is the victim of your lamentable letter, should
>take the unusual step of calling upon you as members of the Upper
>House of the United States legislature either to withdraw what you
>have written or resign your sinecures." (Monckton's letter to Snowe,
>Rockefeller on global warming
>http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Moncktons_letter_to_Snowe_Rockefeller_on_=
>1218.html)
>
>
>when in fact, no Monckton in the alphabetical list of members of the
>House of Lords :
>"Mitchell Lord Labour
>Molyneaux of Killead Lord Crossbench
>Monson Lord Crossbench
>Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Conservative"
>http://www.parliament.uk/directories/house_of_lords_information_office/alph=
>abetical_list_of_members.cfm#M
>
>because nowadays the House of Lords is elected from the vastly
>increasing hereditary peerage, and when Mockton ran, he got **ZERO**
>votes from his, literally, peers:
>http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/HoLNotice070307.pdf
>Maybe it slipped his mind while he was concentrating on weightier
>matters.
>
>like the Falklands War:
>"For a start, in this adventure, in which he routinely wore a bowler
>hat, Monckton won the Falklands conflict from his armchair after
>suggesting, he claims, to the Prime Minister that the best way to
>undermine the Argies was to have the SAS introduce a mild bacillus
>into the water supply in Port Stanley. 'I can tell you from experience
>there is nothing more demoralising than having the trots in a trench!'
>He believes, laughing a little wildly, she took him up on this idea
>and the rest is history."
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/may/06/observerreview.climatecha=
>nge
>
>and correcting Wikipedia:
>On June 6, 2007, someone with IP address 81.77.248.148 added this
>passage to Christopher Monckton's wikipedia page (Wikipedia forbids
>individuals from writing their own Wikipedia pages, for obvious
>reasons):
>
>"Monckton has been published in academic journals on the subject of
>climate change and his principal calculations have been reviewed and
>found accurate by one of the IPCC's expert reviewers. Monckton is
>currently studying higher mathematics at university level. The
>Guardian was compelled to publish a correction the day after one of
>its columnists had criticized Monckton's climate-change analysis as
>scientifically inaccurate, and is reported to have paid Monckton
>=A350,000 in damages."
>
>
>A few hours later, someone with the same IP address complained to
>Wikipedia:
>
>"I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Please remove the article
>about me, pending action in the Court of Session for libel. I have
>made repeated attempts to prevent or correct these libels, but to no
>avail. The action will be filed in 14 days. If anyone from Wikipedia
>wishes to contact me to discuss resolution before the action is filed,
>I may be contacted at monck...@mail.com. If I am not contacted, the
>action will be lodged without further notice, and an application will
>be made for service outside the jurisdiction where necessary. ...."
>
>
>causing this email to be sent:
>
>"Dear Lord Monckton,
>I hope this finds you well. I am puzzled to hear that someone who
>identifies himself as you has been claiming on Wikipedia that the
>Guardian has paid you =A350,000 in damages as a result of an article I
>wrote. Could you please let me know whether or not it was you who made
>this claim, and if so what the meaning of it is.
>Yours Sincerely,
>George Monbiot"
>
>You really have to read the rest of the exchange. It's too good for a
>mere summary.
>http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/10/03/did-lord-monckton-fabricate-a-cl=
>aim-on-his-wikipedia-page/
>
>but of course, he's mostly busy with his groundbreaking research into
>AGW. He has facts at his fingertips available to nobody else:
>
>"This would not be of much concern if the WSJ wasn't such an
>influential paper in the US. However, the extent of its isolation on
>this issue is evident from the amusing reliance on the error-prone
>Christopher Monckton. They quote him saying that the sea level rise
>predictions were much smaller than in IPCC TAR (no they weren't), that
>the human contribution to recent changes has been 'cut by a third' (no
>it hasn't), and that the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) was written
>by politicians (no it wasn't - the clue is in the name)."
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/wsj-editorial-board-h=
V for Vendicar
LLLLLLLLIIIIIIIAAAAAAAARRRRRRRR
"Obama: 50% Black; 50% White; 100% Unqualified" <sp...@nospam.org> wrote
> Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
> Michael Asher (Blog) - July 16, 2008 9:35 PM
>
> The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly
> 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is
> now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced
> global warming.
Rumor Debunked: No Flip-Flop on Global Warming Andrea Thompson
Senior Writer
LiveScience.com
Fri Jul 18, 2:10 PM ET
Claims are floating around the blogosphere that the American Physical
Society,
the leading professional organization for physicists, has reversed its
position
on global warming.
But on its Web site, the APS has reaffirmed that it supports the consensus
view
that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet.
Part of the statement the society adopted on Nov. 18, 2007, states:
"Emissions
of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in
ways
that affect the Earth's climate."
Stories of the supposed policy reversal began popping up after an article by
Christopher Monckton, a politician and a former policy advisor in Margaret
Thatcher's administration, submitted an article in an online newsletter of
the
APS Forum on Physics and Society. The article claimed that the
Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had overestimated the Earth's climate
sensitivity
to carbon dioxide (or how much the global average temperature will change
given
a certain amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere).
In the article, Monckton, the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, also
claims
that changes in solar activity are behind the warming trend of the past few
decades, an idea that has been refuted by several climate scientists.
A note in red lettering above the article states that it has not been
peer-reviewed and that "its conclusions are in disagreement with the
overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the
American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions."
On their homepage, the APS has now placed a statement that reaffirms its
2007
position statement on global warming, which also states, "The evidence is
incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring." It adds that mitigation
efforts
must be taken immediately.
V for Vendicar
"50% Black; 50% White; 100% Clueless" <sp...@nospam.org>
> Yessuh, another cast of thousands of scientists who see thru the
> socialists' hoax.
Are you kidding? We scientists are all part of the global conspiracy to
establish a one world government, run by the U.N. and having Lucifer on it's
throne.
I know because I am a member of the conspiracy and have the secret decoder
ring and everything.
z
<Execute_The_Traitor_In_The_White_Ho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Oh look, another KKKonservative Blogger who is a
> LLLLLLLLIIIIIIIAAAAAAAARRRRRRRR
>
Monckton's article is beautiful, got to hand it to him. He says that
since one author suggests that the effect of CO2 is only half what
most scientists believe, and since another author also says it's only
half, and another another says it's only half, then in reality
multiplying all three, it must be only one half of one half of one
half, therefore one eighth. fuzzy math to the nth power.
V for Vendicar
Here are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line.
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
View with mono spaced font.
1958 14.08 *******o***************
1959 14.06 ********o************
1960 13.99 *********o******
1961 14.08 **********o************
1962 14.04 ***********o********
1963 14.08 ************o**********
1964 13.79 **===========o
1965 13.89 *********====o
1966 13.97 **************o
1967 14.00 ***************o*
1968 13.96 **************==o
1969 14.08 *****************o*****
1970 14.03 ******************o
1971 13.90 **********=========o
1972 14.00 *****************===o
1973 14.14 ********************o******
1974 13.92 ***********==========o
1975 13.95 *************=========o
1976 13.84 ******=================o
1977 14.13 ************************o*
1978 14.02 ******************=======o
1979 14.09 ***********************===o
1980 14.18 ***************************o**
1981 14.27 ****************************o*******
1982 14.05 ********************========o
1983 14.26 *****************************o*****
1984 14.09 ***********************=======o
1985 14.06 *********************==========o
1986 14.13 **************************======o
1987 14.27 *********************************o**
1988 14.31 **********************************o****
1989 14.19 ******************************=====o
1990 14.38 ************************************o*******
1991 14.35 ************************************o****
1992 14.12 *************************============o
1993 14.14 ****************************===========o
1994 14.24 **********************************=====o
1995 14.38 ****************************************o***
1996 14.30 **************************************===o
1997 14.40 ******************************************o**
1998 14.57 *******************************************o*************
1999 14.33 ****************************************===o
2000 14.33 ****************************************====o
2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****
2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********
2003 14.55 ***********************************************o*******
2004 14.49 ************************************************o**
2005 14.62 *************************************************o**********
2006 14.54 **************************************************o****
2007 14.57 ***************************************************o*****
-------------------------------------------> Temperature
Correlation Coefficient .8529209
JOE
<Execute_The_Traitor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Here are
The scientific facts:
"It is evident in the world around us that very dramatic changes are
taking place... This is Mount Kilimanjaro in 1970 with its fabled
snows and glaciers... [Lonnie Thompson] predicts that within 10 years
there will be no more 'Snows of Kilimanjaro'." (pp. 42-45)
The retreat of Kilimanjaro's glaciers is not attributable to
contemporary temperature changes. Kaser et al., 2004, cite a drastic
drop in local atmospheric moisture around the late 1800s; Mason, 2003,
cites deforestation around Kilimanjaro, resulting in a drop in local
precipitation. Young and Hastenrath, 1991, list several potential
factors but single out climate changes than occurred in the late
1800s-early 1900s. Cullen et al., 2006, conclude that Kilimanjaro's
glaciers have been out of equilibrium with local climate since about
1900, i.e. that their retreat reflects climate change a century ago,
not climate change today. Thompson's actual prediction is for loss of
the ice fields in 9-14 years, between 2015 and 2020 (Thompson et al.,
2002).
"Our own Glacier National Park will soon need to be renamed 'the park
formerly known as Glacier'." (p. 46)
Glacier retreat has been ongoing in Glacier National Park since 1850
(USGS, 2003a) due to natural climate variations; the USGS suggests
that with no additional warming the glaciers will likely be gone by
2100, with one model assuming continued warming predicting their
disappearance by 2030 (USGS, 2003b). Even without the current warming
blamed by some on humans, the glaciers of Glacier National Park would
be disappearing since they have been out of equilibrium with the local
environment ever since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850.
"Almost all of the mountain glaciers in the world are now melting..."
(p. 48)
All glaciers are losing mass to melting and gaining mass to
precipitation. Losses outpace gains for most, but not all. Even at the
regional level, some regions show net gains (Dyurgerov and Meier,
2005).
"The Himalayas... provide more than half of the drinking water for 40%
of the world's population... Within the next half-century, that 40% of
the world's people may well face a very serious drinking water
shortage, unless the world acts boldly and quickly to mitigate global
warming." (p. 58)
Research suggests runoff reductions of only 1-8% under various climate
change scenarios (Sharma et al., 2000). Dyurgerov and Meier, 2005,
conclude that the mass loss of Himalayan glaciers from 1960 to 1992
was offset by mass gain of Tibetan glaciers (with little net loss or
gain by Tibetan glaciers since then). Zhao and Moore, 2006, report
that Himalayan snow accumulation has been steadily declining since
1840, predating any current climate change. Even if predictions were
correct regarding disappearance of these glaciers, such melting would
increase river flows in the period of time described by Gore.
(map, p. 59)
The white areas on the map represent high elevations, not glaciers;
only a small fraction of this area (less than 10%) is covered by
glaciers.
"1000 years of northern hemisphere temperature (° C)" (p. 63)
"But as Dr. Thompson's thermometer shows, the vaunted Medieval Warm
Period... was tiny compared to the enormous increases in temperature
of the last half-century" (p. 64)
"Those global warming skeptics--a group diminishing almost as rapidly
as the mountain glaciers--launched a fierce attack against another
measurement of the 1,000-year correlation between CO2 and temperature
known as "the hockey stick," a graphic image representing the research
of climate scientist Michael Mann and his colleagues. But in fact,
scientists have confirmed the same basic conclusions in multiple
ways--with Thompson's ice core record as one of the most definitive."
(p. 65)
The depicted graph is not based on the ice core data of Thompson as
claimed, but is the (mostly tree-ring based) proxy reconstruction of
Mann et al., 1999, combined with the 1840-2000 surface
measurement-based series of Jones et al., 1999. (Specifically, it is a
defective reproduction of a figure from a secondary source.) The lack
of variance before 1840 is relatively unique to Mann et al.'s
methodology for combining proxies, a methodology which has been shown
to have flaws (McIntrye and McKitrick, 2003) and appears to suppress
temperature variations prior to the 20th century relative to other
methods (Dahl-Jensen et al., 1998; von Storch et al., 2004; Moberg et
al., 2005). The actual ice core-based reconstruction by Thompson et
al., 2003, is based on only 6 tropical glaciers and shows a similar
"hockey-stick" shape primarily due to the influence of two cores,
while the other four cores show Medieval Warm Period temperatures very
similar to modern temperatures.
"Nonetheless, the so-called global-warming skeptics often say that
global warming is really an illusion reflecting nature's cyclical
fluctuations. To support their view, they frequently refer to the
Medieval Warm Period." (p. 65)
This is an inaccurate caricature of skeptical views, which really
cover a wide range of views. First, a short-term warming that was part
of a cyclical variation would be real warming, not illusional; second,
"cyclical" does not accurately describe some of the types of natural
effects described by the scientific community that could explain
modern warming. More to the point, many (not all but many) "skeptics"
believe that warming is now occurring, but simply disagree with Gore
on the cause of this warming. Many scientists--some who agree with
Gore on the magnitude of modern warming and some who don't--also
accept the historical evidence for a Medieval Warm Period either
locally or globally as warm as temperatures today. By the same token,
it should not be necessary for Gore to deny the Medieval Warm Period
to assert that warming is occurring today.
"In Antarctica, measurements of CO2 concentrations and temperature go
back 650,000 years... It's a complicated relationship, but the most
important part of it is this: When there is more CO2 in the
atmosphere, the temperature increases because more heat from the Sun
is trapped inside... There is not a single part of this graph--no
fact, date, or number--that is controversial in any way or in dispute
by anybody." (pp. 66-67)
These measurements are directly of CO2 and deuterium (or oxygen-18 in
other cases) in air bubbles in ice cores; the relationship of
deuterium to temperature is indirect and requires assumptions
regarding past isotopic abundances. The reconstructed temperature
series is local, not global; similar ice core temperature
reconstructions from other locations, while correlated with CO2
abundances, are not as strongly correlated as these series selected by
Gore, possibly suggesting local influences. The claim that this
correlation shows that more CO2 leads to higher temperatures is false:
higher resolution studies of the ice cores show that the temperature
increases came first, followed by CO2 increases. For the composite
series shown in this graph, Siegenthaler et al., 2005, find the best
match shows CO2 concentrations lagging 1,900 years behind the
deuterium-derived temperature values. It is believed that the
temperature changes led to changes in the balance between greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere and greenhouse gases in locations such as the
oceans. Apart from this, atmospheric CO2 does not trap heat (such a
statement is linked to misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect);
rather, CO2 and other greenhouse gases selectively absorb outgoing
longwave infrared resulting in a radiative balance at a different
global temperature than without the gases. The fact that the data
within the graph is basically accepted in the scientific community is
a separate issue from the fact that Gore is misinterpreting it.
"The top right point... shows current global temperatures. And the
bottom right point marks the depth of the last ice age. That short
distance--about an inch in the graph--represents the difference, in
Chicago, between a nice day and a mile of ice over your head. Imagine
what three times that much on the warm side would mean." (p. 67)
The implied connection between these temperatures and climate is
misleading. The ice core-based temperature series has a poor time
resolution and does not reflect much larger temperature variations on
timescales of years or decades. Further, the high correlation over
this time period used to support Gore's interpretation does not hold
in the more distant geologic past (Royer et al., 2004).
"This graph charts the actual measurements of global temperature since
the Civil War... And in recent years the rate of increase has been
accelerating... The hottest year recorded during this entire period
was 2005." (pp. 72-73)
Gore does not give a source for this graph, but reportedly it is based
on the GISS temperature series from NASA (Hansen et al., 2006), which
only goes back to 1880. These and other similar series are composite
averages based on ground-based and sea-based measurements, adjusted
and averaged in various ways. Such series cannot absolutely specify
the "hottest" year because the precise temperature values are highly
dependent on the methodology used to average measurements and the
selection of stations to be included in the averages. For example, the
GISS series gives the three successively hottest years as 2005, 1998,
and 2002. The UK Climate Research Unit series (Jones et al., 1999)
instead gives 1998, 2005, and 2002, with 1998 0.1° C warmer than 2005
due to the 1998 El Nino event (Jones and Palutikof, 2006). The Global
Historical Climate Network series gives 2005, 1998, and 2003 as the
hottest years (NOAA, 2006). All of these series, however, show much
greater warmings in the last three decades than more uniform sampling
from satellite-based observations. This post-1970 warming bias may
result from local effects such as the urban heat island effect, or
from problems with the selection of stations used in the average and
the adjustments applied to this data. With such relative extremes so
heavily dependent on the particular methodology used, Gore is
incorrect to make such an absolute claim without qualification.
"We have already begun to see the kind of heatwaves that scientists
say will become much more common if global warming is not addressed.
In the summer of 2003 Europe was hit by a massive heatwave that killed
35,000 people." (p. 75)
This death toll is dominated by 14,082 deaths in France and 4,000 in
Italy, both calculated by comparing observed deaths in August 2003 to
what would "normally be expected" (UNEP, 2004); these deaths,
predominantly among the elderly, have not been individually attributed
to heat-related causes. The French government in particular offered
these precise estimates after initially stating that there was no
accurate way of measuring deaths from the heat. These death tolls
partly reflect the aging population of Europe, but in the case of
France have also been attributed to failed government and health care
system response to the heat wave (BBC, 2003). More generally, despite
the anomaly of the 2003 European heat wave, more accurate treatment of
regional temperatures does not support the claim that regional heat
waves are becoming more frequent (Pielke, 2006).
"In the summer of 2005 many cities in the American West broke all-time
records for high temperatures... And in the East, a number of cities
set daily temperature records..." (pp. 76-77)
Individual local highs and lows always occur, due to the chaotic
variations in weather; when discussing climate, this is not an
appropriate measure. (Note that Gore dismisses local measures of
climate on p. 321.) Such highs are likely attributable to the urban
heat island effect, not to global warming. According to the
GISS-compiled temperature series for the lower 48 states, 2005 tied as
the 9th hottest year on record; the hottest years, from hottest to
cooler, were 1934, 1998, 1921, 1931, 1999, tie between 1953, 1990, and
2001, and tie between 1987 and 2005; 2005 was a full 0.4° C cooler
than 1934 (Sato and Hansen, 2006).
"But scientists who specialize in global warming have been using
evermore accurate computer models that long ago predicted a much
higher range of ocean temperatures as a result of man-made global
warming... The actual ocean temperatures are completely consistent
with what has been predicted as a result of man-made global warming.
And they're way above the range of natural variability." (pp. 78-79)
The global circulation models (GCMs) referred to still fail to
replicate observed temperature changes from first principles; several
phenomena are not well understood but are incorporated with empirical
factors to produce the apparent agreement between models and past
observations. But as more such empirical adjustments are applied, the
models can be forced to reproduce a particular result without
necessarily reproducing the physics correctly. Still, on several
points, GCMs continue to fail the basic scientific test of making
predictions which are subsequently verified (Pielke, 2006). The
predictions from these models tend to be larger than empirical
predictions for a given change in atmospheric CO2 (Lindzen, 1997).
Indirect solar effects, which are highly correlated with climate, are
ignored by these models. Any claim that observed changes are outside
the range of natural variability necessarily assumes that natural
influences have been constant, an assumption which has been
questioned.
"As the oceans get warmer, storms get stronger... there is now a
strong, new emerging consensus that global warming is indeed linked to
a significant increase in both the duration and intensity of
hurricanes. Brand-new evidence is causing some scientists to assert
that global warming is even leading to an increased frequency of
hurricanes, overwhelming the variability in frequency long understood
to be part of natural deep-current cycles." (pp. 80-81)
Gore acknowledges some limitations of the claimed global
warming-hurricane link, but still claims a stronger consensus than
what actually exists. In fact, the scientific community is divided as
to whether recent peaks in hurricane activity are the result of a
global warming trend or merely an indicator of natural cycles. The
research which Gore apparently refers to (Emanuel, 2005; Webster et
al., 2005) has been questioned (Pielke, 2005), and many researchers
(including many in the NOAA) tend to attribute recent active storm
seasons to natural cycles including the Atlantic oscillation (Elsner
et al., 2000; Goldenberg et al., 2001; NOAA, 2005; Chan, 2006).
Kloztbach, 2006, found that the recent increase in North Atlantic
tropical storm activity was offset by a significant decrease in
Northeast Pacific tropical storm activity, leading to minimal global
change. Further, theoretical research has produced varying conclusions
regarding the effect of any global warming on hurricane activity: some
predict more storms, some predict the same number of storms but
stronger storms on average, some models predict limited changes.
Continuing research may yet identify and attribute a trend, but claims
that this has already been settled are premature (Pielke et al., 2005;
Michaels et al., 2006).
"The science textbooks had to be rewritten in 2004. They used to say,
'It's impossible to have hurricanes in the South Atlantic'. But that
year, for the first time ever, a hurricane hit Brazil." (p. 84)
Any textbook making such a claim would not have been credible before
2004. Two other weak tropical storms short of hurricane strength have
been reported in this area during the last 40 years (Pezza and
Simmonds, 2005). Rather than the "first time ever", the "first
recorded instance" would be more accurate.
"Also in 2004, the all-time record for tornadoes in the United States
was broken." (p. 86)
To imply a significance to this fact is misleading, since increased
observations and technological methods permit the tallying of more
weak tornadoes than ever before. No F5 tornado damage occurred in 2004
(McCarthy and Schaefer, 2005), and no trends regarding consistently
measured tornadoes are observed (McCarthy, 2000). Gore also fails to
acknowledge that tornado activity in 2005 was unusually low, with this
the first year in which no tornadoes were reported in Oklahoma in the
month of May.
"... less than a month before Hurricane Katrina hit the United States,
a major study from MIT supported the scientific consensus that global
warming is making hurricanes more powerful and more destructive... And
then came Katrina... The consequences were horrendous..." (pp. 92-95)
Hurricane Katrina cannot be linked individually to any climate trend,
human-caused or otherwise. Further, the uniquely disastrous
consequences of Katrina are mostly a reflection of the fact that it
struck a city below sea level protected by inadequate levees, with
consequences worsened by inept government response at the city, state,
and federal levels. Finally, there is no scientific consensus either
on any trends regarding hurricanes or on the causes for any such
trends, as previously discussed.
"Partly as a result, the number of large flood events has increased
decade by decade, on every continent." (p. 106)
This data cannot be used to support claimed trends in climate.
Observed flood events are influenced by increasing population and
distribution of people in flood-prone areas, as well as by land use
changes which increase runoff during heavy rains. Studies on weather
extremes show heavy rain events are more frequent in some locations
and less frequent in others, not uniformly more frequent as Gore
implies (Easterling et al., 2000).
"In 2005 Europe had a year of unusual catastrophes very similar to the
one in the United States... Europe was experiencing a disastrous
number of floods." (pp. 106-107)
Mudelsee et al., 2003, examined flood records for the Elbe and Oder
rivers in central Europe as far back as 1021 and 1269, respectively,
and found no modern trend regarding the occurrence of floods.
"There has also been record flooding in China, which, as one of the
planet's oldest civilizations, keeps the best flood records of any
nation in the world." (p. 112)
Jiang et al., 2005, examined Chinese flood records for the Yangtze
Delta from 1000 AD to the present and found the frequency of large
floods was greatest from about 1500 to 1700; this was identified as
the transition from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age.
"Paradoxically, however, global warming causes not only more flooding,
but also more drought." (p. 112)
There is some tendency to claim that global warming will produce
opposite extremes, which tends to make it impossible to scientifically
test such claims, given that weather extremes such as flood events and
droughts are natural aspects of a chaotic climate system. Gore makes
the claims here that (1) global warming will causes regional changes
in weather extremes and (2) such trends in weather extremes are
observed. On point one, the general circulation models have
deficiencies previously noted which are even worse with regard to
predictions at the regional level. For some regions, various GCMs give
contradictory predictions. On point two, individual events cited by
Gore do not constitute a trend. Studies on weather extremes show heavy
rain events are more frequent in some locations and less frequent in
others and show little trends for droughts to date (Easterling et al.,
2000).
"The map to the left shows what is projected to happen to soil
moisture in the United States with the doubling of CO2, which would
happen in less than 50 years if we continue business as usual...
Moreover, scientists are now telling us that if we do not act quickly
to contain global warming pollution, we will soon ... more toward a
quadrupling, in which case, scientists tell us, most of the United
States would lose up to 60% of its soil moisture." (p. 121)
These models are based on some questionable assumptions, including
dominance of positive feedbacks in a perturbed climate state. The
particular model used, the GFDL model, produces a greater sensitivity
to a doubling of CO2 than either the median IPCC projection (GFDL,
2004) or recent empirical studies (Annan and Hargreaves, 2006).
Further, while Gore's only reference to the time needed for these
changes is the claim that CO2 doubling could happen "in less than 50
years", the depicted model results are for a doubling in 70 years
followed by a few centuries' climate stabilization, or a quadrupling
in 140 years followed by a few centuries' climate stabilization.
Results are also seasonally dependent (summer is shown). Recently,
greenhouse emission growth rates have slowed, so assumptions of a CO2
doubling in less than 50 years or a quadrupling do not appear
appropriate. Hansen et al., 2000, suggest that non-CO2 greenhouse
gases are the principal causes of recent warming, in which case the
assumptions regarding accelerated carbon dioxide emissions are also
inappropriate.
"Three years ago [the Ward Hunt shelf] cracked in half, to the
astonishment of scientists. This had never happened before." (p. 128)
The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf had loss 90% of its area from 1906 to 1982,
and only covered 443 sq. km at the time of the breakup, which occurred
over the period 2000 to 2002 (Mueller et al., 2003). The breakup of
this shelf was not particularly astonishing, given observed calving of
icebergs over the preceding decades; the remarkable aspect was the
emptying of low-salinity surface water from Disraeli Fiord, previously
trapped by the shelf and overlying high-salinity water.
"Since the 1970s, the extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap has
diminished precipitously. There are now studies showing that if we
continue with business as usual, the Arctic ice cap will completely
disappear each year during the summertime. At present, it plays a
crucial role in cooling the Earth. Preventing its disappearance must
be one of our highest priorities." (p. 143)
Studies of actual observations of Arctic sea ice show significant
year-to-year variability (Laxon et al., 2003), which is not reproduced
in the model studies Gore cites, indicating that they do not correctly
simulate sea ice dynamics. The role of Arctic sea ice in affecting
global climate by reflecting sunlight back to space is not uniquely
crucial, since cloud cover over the same region has a similar effect,
and clouds are not well simulated in the GCMs in question (Potter and
Cess, 2004).
"The reason this Arctic ice cap has been melting so quickly is first
because it is much thinner than the Antarctic ice cap, since it floats
on top of the Arctic Ocean. Second, as soon as a portion of the ice
melts, there is a dramatic difference in the amount of heat absorbed
from the sun." (p. 144)
Antarctica has a much colder climate than the Arctic because the thick
icecap is built up to an altitude much higher than sea level. Many
studies attribute the recent thinning of the Arctic ice cap not
directly to more melting at a given location as Gore implies, but to
changes in the winds and ocean currents that move the sea ice from one
location to another (Hilmer and Jung, 2000; Laxon et al., 2003).
"A new scientific study shows that, for the first time, polar bears
have been drowning in significant numbers." (p. 147)
The "significant numbers" are four drowned polar bears observed in
2004 (Monnett et al., 2005). Of thirteen polar bear populations in
Canada, only two show recent decreases while eleven show increases or
no population change (Taylor, 2006); in Alaska, the two populations
are relatively stable (NFS, 2002a; NFS, 2002b).
"A study from the Netherlands, depicted below... As a result [of
warming], the chicks are in trouble." (p. 153)
The depicted graph does not accurately represent the sensitivity of
the great tit (which was the subject of the study, not the black tern
depicted in the photo on p. 153) to the relative time of peak
caterpillars/bird-hatching. The graph is reproduced from National
Geographic, 2004, which appears to have arbitrarily chosen the widths
of these curves, since their cited source (Both and Visser, 2001) does
not report such data on the distributions of this data. Consequently,
the graph exaggerates the sensitivity of the great tit to the change
in peak caterpillar population. Some factors are not represented such
as the birds adapting by finding other sources of food. The Scientific
American article in question states "The gap between the schedules of
the caterpillars and the birds has had no demonstrable effect so far
on tit numbers" (Grossman, 2004).
"Swiss frost days...invasive species..." (p. 154)
The graph is reproduced from National Geographic, 2004, which in turn
reproduced it from Walther et al., 2002: both of these use the more
accurate label "exotic species", while Gore uses "invasive species".
Gore does not identify these species or the nature of this
measurement: this represents broad-leafed plant species imported by
humans to gardens and parks in southern Switzerland, which have
subsequently spread from these locations. The actual methodology used
to produce this data is discussed elsewhere (Walther, 2000; Walther,
2002) and may not be a linear indicator of the spread of such plant
life. While such spread is influenced by milder local climate, it is
also influenced by the selection and frequency of plants imported.
"...14 million acres of spruce trees in Alaska and British Columbia
that have been killed by bark beetles, whose rapid spread was once
slowed by colder and longer winters." (p. 156)
The bark beetle outbreaks in the late 1990s reflected a combination of
several warm winters and poor forest management practices, such as
fire suppression practices (ADNR, 2004).
"In fact, we are facing what biologists are beginning to describe as a
mass extinction crisis, with a rate of extinction now 1,000 times
higher than the normal background rate." (p. 163)
Known species extinctions in the last several centuries total about
1,000, with very few attributed to climate change. The estimates Gore
refers to here are unconfirmed estimates which either assume that GCM
predictions of future warming are reliable or consider the effects of
phenomena apart from global warming.
"Corals--along with many other ocean life forms--are threatened by the
unprecedented growth of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide..." (p.
168)
Gore does not acknowledge significant variations in coral reef
response to perturbations such as temperature or dissolved carbon
dioxide. A recent review (Hughes et al., 2003) states "reefs will
change rather than disappear entirely, with some species already
showing far greater tolerance to climate change and coral bleaching
than others."
"In general, the relationship between the human species and viruses is
less threatening when there are colder winters, colder nights, more
stability in climate patterns, and fewer disruptions... Global warming
pushes all of these boundaries in the wrong direction, thereby
increasing human vulnerability to new and unfamiliar diseases, as well
as new strains of diseases once under control... mosquitoes are
profoundly affected by global warming... Some 30 so-called new
diseases have emerged over the last 25 to 30 years. And some old
diseases that had been under control are now surging again. One
example is the West Nile virus..." (pp. 172-175)
Most of the "new diseases" in this sensationalist listing are
irrelevant to climate change discussions, as the disease-spread
mechanisms are poorly linked to climate or not linked to climate at
all. Most of the new diseases listed on p. 174 are associated with
human interaction/infrastructure changes, i.e. spread by global
transportation, spread in closed artificial environments, spread
mainly by direct contact with body fluids, etc. Claims regarding
climate change-disease links must be limited to those diseases which
have some relation to climate, such as mosquito-borne malaria.
However, health experts point out that even for these diseases such
claims exaggerate the dependence of disease spread on climate to the
exclusion of other factors. Malaria, for example, is affected more by
health care practices, degree of development, and degree of past
control exercised. In particular, control of malaria has suffered from
the opposition to the use of DDT for mosquito control (Roberts et al.,
1997). Further, research indicates that estimates of climate-related
malaria impact are exaggerated (Rogers and Randolph, 2001) and tend to
disregard the body of knowledge about the disease (Reiter et al.,
2004).
"Once the sea-based ice shelf was gone, the land-based ice... began to
shift and fall into the sea... This is one of the reasons sea levels
have been rising worldwide..." (p. 184)
Current sea level rise, estimated at 2.8 centimeters per decade, is
mostly attributed to thermal expansion of the oceans (Cazenave and
Nerem, 2004), with additional contributions from net mass loss from
mountain glaciers (IPCC, 2001). Glacial outflow as described is a
minor contributor to current sea level change, given that ice
accumulation on inland ice caps mostly offsets this.
"Many residents of low-lying Pacific Island nations have already had
to evacuate their homes because of rising seas." (p. 187)
The evacuations referred to cannot be linked to global sea level rise.
Measurements of sea level change at Pacific Islands vary from island
to island, with some showing rises and some showing drops. These
changes are primarily the result of local geologic subsistence or
uplift. The primary issue here is the increase of population living in
the lowest locations on these islands, and the increase in more
permanent habitations at such locations. The situation is somewhat
analogous to the increase in flood-related damage in the United
States, which results not from more floods but from more construction
in areas known to be vulnerable to floods.
"The Thames River... In recent decades, higher sea levels began to
cause more damage... The graph below shows how frequently London has
had to use these barriers... The resulting pattern is similar to many
others that measure the increasing impact of global warming
worldwide." (pp. 188-189)
Recent increases in Thames barrier closures reflect changes in the
rules for such closures along with increasing closures to keep river
water in, i.e. a response to relatively low sea level, not high sea
level. The British government has stated that Thames barrier closures
should not be considered an indicator for climate change (DEFRA,
2004).
"The East Antarctic ice shelf...had been thought to be still
increasing in size... However, two new studies in 2006 showed first
that the overall volumes of ice in East Antarctica now appear to be
declining..." (p. 190)
The one study related to East Antarctic ice volume is based on only
three years' observations from the GRACE satellite and actually show
no net change over the study period (Velicogna and Wahr, 2006). These
results are somewhat model dependent, and other researchers using the
same dataset have concluded that East Antarctic ice volume increased
(Chen et al., 2006; Ramillien et al., 2006). The broader body of
scientific research on this topic, using both measurements and models,
shows East Antarctic ice volume has increased in the past few decades
(IPCC, 2001; van de Berg et al., 2006).
"In recent years, the melting [in Greenland] has accelerated
dangerously." (p. 194)
While some recent research has described mechanisms for acceleration
of glacier outflow in Greenland (Zwally et al., 2002), measurements of
the cumulative mass balance for Greenland show that its contribution
to sea level is about 0.1-0.4 millimeters per year, such that
"dangerous" is not a useful term. Further, the current conditions in
Greenland are not unprecedented; measurements show that temperatures
in Greenland in the 1930s were about the same as temperatures today
(Chylek et al., 2006; Vinther et al., 2006). In general, observed
Arctic warmings are significantly less than predicted, also refuting
the GCMs.
"If Greenland melted or broke up and slipped into the sea--or if half
of Greenland and half of Antarctica melted or broke up and slipped
into the sea, sea levels worldwide would increase by between 18 and 20
feet." (p. 196)
The Greenland ice sheet cannot slip into the sea, since it is resting
in a bowl-shaped depression produced by its own weight, surrounded by
mountains which permit only limited glacier outflow to the sea. Gore's
reference to "half of Antarctica" should be to "half of the West
Antarctic ice sheet", which is the portion of Antarctica's ice
comparable to Greenland in volume and the portion showing any
sensitivity to climate change. Only with regard to the West Antarctic
ice sheet have any scientists proposed any potential for accelerated
outflow into the sea, but even under the most pessimistic scenarios
described in the scientific literature this would take hundreds of
years. The consensus of the scientific community is for estimates of
thousands of years for both Greenland (Greve, 2000; Alley et al.,
2005; Lowe et al., 2006) and West Antarctica (Oppenheimer, 1998;
Vaughan and Spouge, 2002; Oppenheimer and Alley, 2004).
"This is what would happen to Florida... San Francisco Bay... the
Netherlands... Beijing... More than 20 million people would have to be
evacuated... In Shanghai and the surrounding area, more than 40
million people would be forced to move... In Calcutta and Bangladesh,
60 million people would be displaced... The site of the World Trade
Center would be underwater." (pp. 198-209)
The United Nations IPCC predictions for sea level rise over the next
100 years, even though they are based on models and assumptions which
exaggerate warming over that period, are only 0.1 to 0.8 meters
(median estimate 0.48 meters) (IPCC, 2001). As mentioned above, the
consensus of the scientific community is that sea level rise of 6
meters/20 feet as described by Gore, even if it does happen, would
take thousands of years. A minority view in the scientific community
suggests scenarios in which this could occur in 250-400 years. Such
timescales, which are longer than the history of the country that
built the World Trade Center, would certainly not require any
"evacuations". The depicted images also use a subtle technique to
exaggerate the appearance of sea level rise: the post-rise images are
from a more distant perspective, causing the remaining land to be even
smaller in appearance.
"The graph below shows the steady increase in major wildfires in North
and South America..." (p. 229)
Such wildfires are less a reflection of any climate change and more a
reflection of increases in population, poor historical management
practices by the U.S. government of woodlands and grasslands, and
increased use of fires for clearing forest in Latin America.
"Moreover, since science thrives on uncertainty and politics is
paralyzed by it, scientists have a difficult time sounding the alarm
bells for politicians, because even when their findings make it clear
that we're in grave danger, their first impulse is to replicate the
experiment to see if they get the same result." (p. 260)
This statement mischaracterizes science. Many scientists are quite
willing to "sound alarm bells", some whether or not the evidence
justifies such concern. More generally, scientists are engaged in
evidence-based testing of descriptions of the world we live in, and
are disinclined to involve themselves in political applications of
their work. Nonetheless, scientists are human beings and tend to be
quite ready to call attention to hazards they discover, as is evident
from a cursory inspection of the history of science in the public
arena. It is unfair to suggest that scientists will tend not to call
for attention to clear evidence of danger.
"For example, the so-called global warming skeptics cite one article
more than any other in arguing that global warming is just a myth: a
statement of concern during the 1970s that the world might be in
danger of entering a new ice age..." (pp. 260-261)
Gore is incorrect to claim that such references to past concerns about
global cooling stem from a single article, or only from non-peer
reviewed sources. Kukla et al., 1972, discussed the possibility of an
ice age, and similarly the review by Kukla and Matthews, 1972, of a
scientific conference titled "The Present Interglacial, How and When
Will it End?" stated "several investigators showed ... if nature were
allowed to run its course unaltered by man, events similar to those
which ended the last interglacial should be expected to occur perhaps
as soon as the next few centuries." To be clear, the scientific
community was only beginning to evaluate long-term climate change,
whether from natural or man-made causes, but such views were more
widely disseminated (out of context) by the press and by
environmentalists as well. The Newsweek article cited by Gore (Gwynne,
1975) is only one such example (it was cited by Rush Limbaugh in 2002,
perhaps Gore's source of information); other such reports included an
article in National Geographic (Mathews, 1976) and a vague statement
by prominent environmentalist (Ehrlich, 1968). The point raised by
"skeptics" here is not so much a reference to the vetted claims of the
scientific community, but to the tendency of the popular media in
general and some environmentalists in particular to take scientific
claims out of context, to single out the worst case scenario from a
range of possibilities, and to present this scenario as fact, as Gore
does.
"There is a misconception that the scientific community is in a state
of disagreement about whether global warming is real, whether human
beings are the principal cause, and whether its consequences are so
dangerous as to warrant immediate action. In fact, there is virtually
no serious disagreement remaining on any of these central points..."
(p. 261)
This statement is false. A significant number of scientists reject the
first two points, or would qualify any agreement. The third claim,
that "consequences are so dangerous as to warrant immediate action,"
is likely rejected by a majority of the scientific community,
particularly if the context is Gore's specific claims. To declare the
debate over, as Gore does, is a rejection of scientific methodology.
The survey by Bray described below (Bray, 2005) demonstrates a very
mixed set of opinions in the scientific community.
"Dr. Naomi Oreskes, published in Science magazine a massive study of
every peer-reviewed science journal article on global warming from the
previous 10 years... Percentage of articles in doubt as to the cause
of global warming: 0%" (p. 262)
The cited "study" by Oreskes, a historian, comprised a review of only
928 abstracts identified by a search engine using the keywords "global
climate change" (not "climate change" as her article originally
claimed, as this yields 12,000 abstracts). Her results were presented
in an opinion editorial in Science (Oreskes, 2004), days before the
10th Conference on Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change. The scientific method for validating research is to
replicate results, and Oreskes' work fails this test. Review of the
Oreskes' set shows at least two that explicitly reject the 'consensus
position' within the abstract, even apart from the remainder of the
paper. Peiser conducted a similar study of abstracts identified in a
search for "global climate change": of 1,117 abstracts, he found that
only 1% "explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'," 29% "implicitly
accept the 'consensus view'," 3% "reject or doubt the view that human
activities are the main drivers of 'the observed warming over the last
50 years'," and most take no position or are unrelated to the global
warming hypothesis (Peiser, 2005). A 2003 survey by Bray (Bray, 2005)
of 530 climate scientists asking "To what extent do you agree or
disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic
causes?" yielded very mixed results: on a scale of one to seven, 56%
agreed strongly to slightly (including 9% strongly) and 29% disagreed
strongly to slightly (including 10% strongly). Letters on both of
these studies, incidentally, were rejected by Science. Such
superficial studies as that by Oreskes are biased by the obligatory
acknowledgement of "climate change" that researchers must make in
order to get research published, particularly in view of editorial
bias such as that exhibited by Science.
"The misconception that there is serious disagreement among scientists
about global warming is actually an illusion that has been
deliberately fostered by a relatively small but extremely well-funded
cadre of special interests, including Exxon Mobil and a few other oil,
coal, and utilities companies." (p. 263)
This is a slanderous misrepresentation of the nature of scientific
debate on the issue of climate change. Many scientists, based on
conclusions drawn from their examination of the evidence, hold sincere
disagreements with some or all aspects of the global warming
hypothesis as described by Gore. Some are falsely accused of financial
ties to the energy industry, despite the fact that they may have
difficulty obtaining funding from traditional sources with a
pro-global warming bias. Whatever expenditures undertaken by the
energy industry on public relations related to global warming, similar
large expenditures have been undertaken by the environmentalist lobby.
(And only one of these two lobbies has produced a major motion
picture.)
"In 1984 a dramatic hole in the ozone layer was discovered above
Antarctica, just as the scientists forecasted." (p. 295)
The discovery of the ozone "hole", a seasonal partial depletion of
ozone over Antarctica, was not consistent with the forecasts. The
"hole" represented depletion phenomena specific to the the climate
conditions and presence of cloud particles over Antarctica, a
phenomena not anticipated.
JOE
<Execute_The_Traitor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Just show the Executive Summary:
Executive summary: Al Gore's new book and movie, both titled An
Inconvenient Truth, have been hailed by environmentalists--despite
being filled with false or misleading claims about the science of
global warming and related issues. This page details errors in the
book (2006, Rodale Books), which in summary include:
Misleading links between weather events and climate change: Climate is
the average of weather conditions over long time periods; because the
climate system is inherently variable, individual weather events are
not indicative of trends. Nonetheless, Gore overwhelms the reader with
many individual events, claiming this is global warming in action: a
European heatwave, record daily highs in U.S. cities one summer,
hurricane Katrina, floods in Europe and China, and more. To address
the issue of climate change, all such events must be considered over
time. As it turns out, in several cases such analysis refutes any
claims of recent trends (for example, with regard to floods).
In other cases, the scientific community is engaged in much
research and debate. Gore claims that there is "an emerging consensus"
that hurricane activity is on the upswing due to global warming. The
reality is that this is the subject of much debate in the scientific
community: different researchers have produced contradictory
conclusions, but the factors involved are far more complex than Gore
admits, and research is continuing.
Misrepresentation of data: Of the various graphs and other data Gore
presents, some of it is misrepresented. Gore presents one graph, said
to be temperature data derived from ice cores, to support the
controversial claim of one research group--Mann et al.--that current
temperatures are higher than anytime in the last 1,000 years. The
graph is not the ice core data, however, but the Mann et al. data
derived from tree rings and other proxies. The broader claim is
questioned by many scientists as well--much research suggests that
temperatures around 1100-1300 AD were about as warm as today--as well
as the methodology used to support such claims. Gore uses another set
of ice core data to claim that carbon dioxide concentrations have
driven global temperatures for the last 600,000 years. He admits the
actual relationship is "complicated", which is as close as he comes to
admitting the fact that the temperature changes came first, and
probably helped drive the carbon dioxide changes.
These aren't the only cases of sloppiness with data: Gore claims
the hottest year on record was 2005, but in reality existing
observations don't have the accuracy to discriminate between, say,
2005 and 1998, a hot year due to an extreme El Nino event. He claims
that the increasing closures of the barrier's on Britain's Thames
River show sea level is rising, but doesn't mention that the British
government recently changed the rules for such closures, including
closing the barriers to deal with low sea level; and he claims that a
particular bird species is "in trouble" in the Netherlands due to
climate change, but researchers report no change in this bird
population. He cites a peak in tornadoes in 2004 as further evidence,
but this peak came from new technology permitting the counting of more
weak tornadoes than ever before; comparison of consistent data shows
no trends in tornadoes.
Exaggerations about sea level rise: Gore claims that potential melting
of ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctic will force the
"evacuation" of millions of people to escape sea level rise of 6
meters (20 feet). This flatly contradicts even the worst-case
scenarios described by the scientific community. Most research
indicates that such melting, even if it could occur, would take 1,000
to 5,000 years; the minimum timescale described by any researcher for
such melting is still centuries. Even the United Nations' IPCC, source
of the "consensus" analysis which still overestimates future warming,
only predicts sea level rise of 0.1 to 0.8 meters (4 to 30 inches) in
the next 100 years.
Misleading claims about effects of climate change: Gore claims that
the emergence of new diseases is related to global warming, but most
of the diseases he lists have little or no relationship to climate.
Even in the case of malaria, a disease with a stronger link to
climate, health experts cite the management of human infrastructure
and health systems as far more important factors. In other cases Gore
neglects the strong influence of human resource management, as with
linking occurrence of wildfires or pest outbreaks to global warming.
He also claims global warming is causing a "significant" number of
polar bear drownings, based on a report of four drowned polar bears;
however, other researchers report the polar bear population is
generally unchanged. Melting of glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro and in
Glacier National Park are cited as consequences of global warming, but
in both cases these glaciers have been melting since the 1800s, when
the Earth emerged from a period of global cooling.
Reliance on worst-case scenarios: An underlying problem is that Gore
seizes upon worst-case scenarios and presents them as fact--sometimes
omitting important qualifiers. Much of the claims about the
consequences of future global warming rely on climate models that Gore
calls "evermore accurate", but significant questions about the
reliability of these models remain, and the effects cited by Gore
presume that the worse-case predictions of these models are the
correct ones. More generally, climate change should be considered at
the regional or local level, where impacts would variously be positive
or negative--especially depending on how we choose to respond. Gore
consistently discusses the most negative impacts, and even minimizes
the possibility of positive change.
False claims about scientific views on global warming: Gore asserts
that the scientific community is in essentially unanimous agreement
with his interpretation of global warming, and dismisses skepticism of
global warming as an energy industry conspiracy. Not only are such
claims false, they severely misrepresent the very process of science.
Gore cites a flawed editorial from a science journal to claim that all
published research agrees with the "consensus" view on global warming;
in reality, much published research contradicts Gore's position on
global warming, and a recent survey of climate scientists found the
community fairly split on the claim that there is an imminent threat
from human-caused global warming. Despite the abundance of scientific
research contradicting his position, Gore instead concentrates on
refuting a handful of skeptical claims from outside the scientific
community--and can't even get the facts right on those. To add insult
to injury, Gore repeatedly impugns the motives of scientists and
non-scientists who question his "consensus" on global warming. Rather
than confront the scientific facts, he stereotypes the critics and
dismisses them based on imagined motives.
Misleading claims about the responsibility of the United States: Gore
says the United States is particularly to blame for the claimed global
warming crisis, but doesn't give a fair view of the issues. He makes
misleading comparisons of fuel economy standards in the U.S. and other
countries; also, he criticizes the U.S. failure to ratify the Kyoto
Protocol without acknowledging the ways in which the Protocol
disproportionately targeted the U.S. economy. He also understates the
economic adjustments required to attain the goals he sets.
Conceptual errors: Gore's explanation of several topics, including the
greenhouse effect, the relationship of carbon dioxide and global
temperature, decline in Arctic Ocean pack ice, structure of the
Greenland ice sheet, and ozone depletion, contain conceptual errors.
He may indeed have a correct understanding of these issues, but what
he communicates serves to perpetuate misconceptions on these subjects.
Combined with the low reading level of the text, this tends to convey
the lowest expectations of his readers.
Gore's portrayal of the subject of global warming is scientifically
unsupportable; even some scientists who accept the premise of global
warming have been willing to call him on some errors. His portrayal of
scientific skepticism regarding global warming is shameful; science
requires healthy criticism to progress. The effect of attempts by Gore
and others to silence dissent is harmful to scientific understanding
as well as its application by society. The effort to use such twisted
science to further a political agenda is such a harm.
V for Vendicar
"JOE" <Windswept@Home> wrote
> Executive summary: Al Gore's new book and movie, both titled An
> Inconvenient Truth, have been hailed by environmentalists--despite
> being filled with false or misleading claims about the science of
> global warming and related issues. This page details errors in the
> book (2006, Rodale Books), which in summary include:
Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire.
Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
(06-27) 18:15 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --
The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al
Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.
The former vice president's movie - replete with the prospect of a flooded
New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening
droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets - mostly got the
science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read
the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.
The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone
for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate
change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited
release, or read the book.
But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed
the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade
catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of
Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important
material and got it right."
Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow
presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.
"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said.
"After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a
lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."
Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I took
a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right."
The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and
less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician
explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of
the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at
the Climate Institute in Washington.
One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming.
That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited
five recent scientific studies to support his view.
"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and
unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts
associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific
consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology
and oceanography.
Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of
the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the
Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link
between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.
While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden
warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was
too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for
Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the
problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in
habit - such as changing light bulbs - the world could help slow or stop
global warming.
While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May,
that does not include Washington's top science decision makers. President
Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency
and NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie
is on his to-see list.
"They are quite literally afraid to know the truth," Gore said. "Because if
you accept the truth of what the scientific community is saying, it gives
you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70 million tons of global
warming pollution that human civilization is putting into the atmosphere
every day."
As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences
professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell asleep. Of course, I
was on the edge of my chair."
JOE
<Execute_The_Traitor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"JOE" <Windswept@Home> wrote
>> Executive summary: Al Gore's new book and movie, both titled An
>> Inconvenient Truth, have been hailed by environmentalists--despite
>> being filled with false or misleading claims about the science of
>> global warming and related issues. This page details errors in the
>> book (2006, Rodale Books), which in summary include:
>
> Show me something less technical
July 21, 2008
Oceanic Influences On Recent Continental Warming - An Important New
Research Paper: Compo and Sardeshmukh, 2008
“Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has
occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans
rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs)
over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with
prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed
GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic
influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections,
primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing
the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may
themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic
influences.”
The conclusion of the paper reads
“In summary, our results emphasize the significant role of remote
oceanic influences, rather than the direct local effect of
anthropogenic radiative forcings, in the recent continental warming.
They suggest that the recent oceanic warming has caused the continents
to warm through a different set of mechanisms than usually identified
with the global impacts of SST changes. It has increased the humidity
of the atmosphere, altered the atmospheric vertical motion and
associated cloud fields, and perturbed the longwave and shortwave
radiative fluxes at the continental surface. While continuous global
measurements of most of these changes are not available through the
1961-2006 period, some humidity observations are available and do show
upward trends over the continents. These include near-surface
observations (Dai 2006) as well as satellite radiance measurements
sensitive to upper tropospheric moisture (Soden et al. 2005).”
Although not a focus of this study, the degree to which the oceans
themselves have recently warmed due to increased GHG, other
anthropogenic, natural solar and volcanic forcings, or internal
multi-decadal climate variations is a matter of active investigation
(Stott et al. 2006; Knutson et al. 2006; Pierce et al. 2006). Reliable
assessments of these contributing factors depend critically on
reliable estimations of natural climate variability, either from the
observational record or from coupled climate model simulations without
anthropogenic forcings. Several recent studies suggest that the
observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models
used in preparing the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, with
substantial errors on interannual and decadal scales (e.g., Shukla et
al. 2006, DelSole, 2006; Newman 2007; Newman et al. 2008). There is a
hint of an underestimation of simulated decadal SST variability even
in the published IPCC Report (Hegerl et al. 2007, FAQ9.2 Figure 1).
Given these and other misrepresentations of natural oceanic
variability on decadal scales (e.g., Zhang and McPhaden 2006), a role
for natural causes of at least some of the recent oceanic warming
should not be ruled out.
Regardless of whether or not the rapid recent oceanic warming has
occurred largely from anthropogenic or natural influences, our study
highlights its importance in accounting for the recent observed
continental warming. Perhaps the most important conclusion to be drawn
from our analysis is that the recent acceleration of global warming
may not be occurring in quite the manner one might have imagined. The
indirect and substantial role of the oceans in causing the recent
continental warming emphasizes the need to generate reliable
projections of ocean temperature changes over the next century, in
order to generate more reliable projections of not just the global
mean temperature and precipitation changes (Barsugli et al. 2006), but
also regional climate changes.”
This is a major scientific conclusion, and the authors should be
recognized for this achievement. If these results are robust, it
further documents that a regional perspective of climate variabilty
and change must be adopted, rather than a focus on a global average
surface temperature change, as emphasized in the 2007 IPCC WG1 report.
This work also provides support for the perspective on climate
sensitivity that Roy Spencer has reported on in his powerpoint
presentation last week (see).
http://climatesci.org/2008/07/21/oceanic-influences-on-recent-continental-
warming-an-important-new-research-paper-compo-and-sardeshmukh-2008/
z
<Execute_The_Traitor_In_The_White_Ho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Here are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line.
>
> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
liberal lies! last night the temperature definitely went down.
zzbu...@netscape.net
Unqualified) wrote:
> Bwahahahahahahahahahah
> hahahahahahhhahahaha
> _______
>
> Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
> Michael Asher (Blog) - July 16, 2008 9:35 PM
>
> The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly
> 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is
> now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced
> global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the
> validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had
> previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."
Well, since their is nothing the average person can do about
anything
any of this CO2 stuff in the so-called "Public" Debate, that's
quite simply
why the only energy initiavitves you'll ever see, from now until
forever,
with the Neo-Con Media wanks that run everything anymore, is just
more
A.I,+++, PV Cells, Wind Energy, DVD+Brains, Biodiesel, and
Drones.
z
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:58:35 -0400, "V for Vendicar"
>
> >Just show the Executive Summary:
Meanwhile, the british channel 4 fakeumentary "the great global
warming swindle" which is so revered by what-me-agw enthusiasts so
ignorant that they refer to it as produced by the bbc, has been found
by the organization that rules on british broadcast standards to have
been "unfair" in its portrayals of the IPCC and others, and only
escaped being found "inaccurate" because channel 4's defense was that
"Channel 4 said that The Great Global Warming Swindle was clearly
identified as an authored polemic of the kind that is characteristic
of some of Channel 4’s output...The channel said that the programme
sought to present the viewpoint of the minority of scientists who do
not believe that global warming is caused by the anthropogenic
production of carbon dioxide." so, channel 4 were censured and
required to broadcast the results of the ruling. i assume the folks
who were so excited by it as to broadcast it here to us on usenet will
of course also broadcast the results of the ruling.
and even though it only escaped being ruled as unfair because channel
4 defended it as being a polemic, it's not supposed to be fair,
"Although this programme was intentionally designed as a polemic,
these comments were so sweeping and intemperate that they risked to
some degree undermining the fact that overall the programme very
aggressively challenged the mainstream scientific consensus on man’s
contribution to global warming, without concluding that the mainstream
scientific theory was completely without merit."
luckily for channel 4, their pet polecat escaped being tagged for
repeating the lie that AGW is not the accepted mainstream consensus
theory, because basically everbody knows that it is: "Ofcom considers
there is a difference between presenting an opinion which attacks an
established, mainstream and well understood view, such as in this
programme, and criticising a view which is much more widely disputed
and contentious. In the former case, programme makers are not always
required to ensure the detailed reflection of the mainstream view
(since it will already be known and generally accepted by the majority
of viewers)."
so, all those who crowed about "the great global warming swindle",
please stand up and take a bow; don't be shy. you rightwingnuts are
always way too shy for taking credit for all your past references to
things like this movie, or colin powell's demonstration of iraqi
mobile poison gas generators, or how we eliminated the taliban. and
those who cited the movie as produced by the BBC, please identify
yourselves as recipients as a special award. we over here in the
reality-based community salute you, for living in a land where wishes
come true, which we can never visit.
V for Vendicar
"JOE" <Rel...@home.net> wrote
> July 21, 2008
> Oceanic Influences On Recent Continental Warming - An Important New
> Research Paper: Compo and Sardeshmukh, 2008
Still cant' find yourself a peer reviewed paper ay?
Still relying on Blogs run by Oil Industry Shills.
URAh MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNN
V for Vendicar
> Here are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line.
>
> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
"z" <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote
> liberal lies! last night the temperature definitely went down.
Not only are the KKKonservatives who ran FEMA completely incompetent, and
unable to
even properly count spoons. It should be now clear that KKKonesrvatives are
completely incapable of
interpreting simple plots, that any grade 4 student can readily understand.
Here is the temperature data for the last 11 years again, along with the
long term trend line.
1997 14.40 ******************************************o**
1998 14.57 *******************************************o*************
1999 14.33 ****************************************===o
2000 14.33 ****************************************====o
2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****
2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********
2003 14.55 ***********************************************o*******
2004 14.49 ************************************************o**
2005 14.62 *************************************************o**********
2006 14.54 **************************************************o****
2007 14.57 ***************************************************o*****
Temperatures are going up, Up, UP.
And RepubliKKKans are liars, Liars, LIARS
JOE
<Execute_The_Traitor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"JOE" <Rel...@home.net> wrote
>> July 21, 2008
>> Oceanic Influences On Recent Continental Warming - An Important New
>> Research Paper: Compo and Sardeshmukh, 2008
Al Gore's Doomsday Clock
July 22, 2008; Page A17
Al Gore gave a speech last week "challenging" America to run "on 100%
zero-carbon electricity in 10 years" -- though that's just the first
step on his road to "ending our reliance on carbon-based fuels."
Serious people understand this is absurd. Maybe other people will
start drawing the same conclusion about the man proposing it.
The former vice president has also recently disavowed any intention of
returning to politics. This is wise. As America's leading peddler of
both doom and salvation, Mr. Gore has moved beyond the constraints and
obligations of reality. His job is to serve as a Prophet of Truth.
Ken Fallin
In Mr. Gore's prophesy, a transition to carbon-free electricity
generation in a decade is "achievable, affordable and transformative."
He believes that the goal can be achieved almost entirely through the
use of "renewables" alone, meaning solar, geothermal, wind power and
biofuels.
And he doesn't think we really have any other good options: "The
survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk," he
says, with his usual gift for understatement. "And even more -- if
more should be required -- the future of human civilization is at
stake."
What manner the catastrophe might take isn't yet clear, but the
scenarios are grim: The climate crisis is getting worse faster than
anticipated; global warming will cause refugee crises and destabilize
entire nations; an "energy tsunami" is headed our way. And so on.
Here, however, is an inconvenient fact. In 1995, the U.S. got about
2.2% of its net electricity generation from "renewable" sources,
according to the Energy Information Administration. By 2000, the last
full year of the Clinton administration, that percentage had dropped
to 2.1%. By contrast, the combined share of coal, petroleum and
natural gas rose to 70% from 68% during the same time frame.
Now the share of renewables is up slightly, to about 2.3% as of 2006
(the latest year for which the EIA provides figures). The EIA thinks
the use of renewables (minus hydropower) could rise to 201 billion
kilowatt hours per year in 2018 from the current 65 billion. But the
EIA also projects total net generation in 2018 to be 4.4 trillion
kilowatt hours per year. That would put the total share of renewables
at just over four percent of our electricity needs.
Mr. Gore's argument would be helped if he were also willing to propose
huge investments in nuclear power, which emits no carbon dioxide and
currently supplies about one-fifth of U.S. electricity needs, and
about three-quarters of France's. Britain has just approved eight new
nuclear plants, and the German government of Angela Merkel is working
to do away with a plan by the previous government to go nuclear-free.
But Mr. Gore makes no mention of nuclear power in his speech, nor of
the equally carbon-free hydroelectric power. These are proven
technologies -- and useful reminders of what happens when
environmentalists get what they wished for.
Mr. Gore's case would also be helped if our experience of renewable
sources were a positive one. It isn't. In his useful book "Gusher of
Lies," Robert Bryce notes that "in July 2006, wind turbines in
California produced power at only about 10% of their capacity; in
Texas, one of the most promising states for wind energy, the windmills
produced electricity at about 17% of their rated capacity." Like wind
power, solar power also suffers from the problem of intermittency,
which means that it has to be backed up by conventional sources in
order to avoid disruptions. This is especially true of hot summers
when the wind doesn't blow and cold winters when the sun doesn't
shine.
And then there are biofuels, whose recent vogue, the World Bank
believes, may have been responsible for up to 75% of the recent rise
in world food prices. Save the planet; starve the poor.
None of this seems to trouble Mr. Gore. He thinks that simply by
declaring an emergency he can help achieve Stakhanovite results. He
might recall what the Stakhanovite myth (about the man who mined 14
times his quota of coal in six hours) actually did to the Soviet
economy.
A more interesting question is why Mr. Gore remains believable.
Perhaps people think that facts ought not to count against a man whose
task is to raise our sights, or play Cassandra to unbelieving mortals.
Or maybe he is believed simply because people want something in which
to believe. "The readiness for self-sacrifice," wrote Eric Hoffer in
"The True Believer," "is contingent on an imperviousness to the
realities of life. . . . All active mass movements strive, therefore,
to interpose a fact-proof screen between the faithful and the
realities of the world. They do this by claiming that the ultimate and
absolute truth is already embodied in their doctrine and that there is
no truth nor certitude outside it. . . . To rely on the evidence of
the senses and of reason is heresy and treason. It is startling to
realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible."
V for Vendicar
"JOE" <sp...@nospam.org> wrote
> Al Gore's Doomsday Clock
> July 22, 2008; Page A17
> Al Gore gave a speech last week "challenging" America to run "on 100%
> zero-carbon electricity in 10 years"
It was an excellent speech too. Gore is exceptional in that area of
endeavour as well.
Not that I care for the man, but Oil Barron T. Boone Pickens agrees with
Gore and his time table.
How sad for you.
Landy
"V for Vendicar" <Execute_The_Traitor...@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:wsvhk.33165$Mc....@read1.cgocable.net...
V for Very fuckin' ignorant strikes again.
Is that the best you can do?
JOE
<Execute_The_Traitor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"JOE" <sp...@nospam.org> wrote
>> Al Gore's Doomsday Clock
>> July 22, 2008; Page A17
>> Al Gore gave a speech last week "challenging" America to run "on 100%
>> zero-carbon electricity in 10 years"
The retreat of Kilimanjaro's glaciers is not attributable to
V for Vendicar
>>> July 21, 2008
>>> Oceanic Influences On Recent Continental Warming - An Important New
>>> Research Paper: Compo and Sardeshmukh, 2008
"V for Vendicar" <Execute_The_Traitor...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Still cant' find yourself a peer reviewed paper ay?
>>
>> Still relying on Blogs run by Oil Industry Shills.
>>
>> URAh MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNN
"Landy" <no...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:g6749g$424$1...@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...
> V for Very fuckin' ignorant strikes again.
> Is that the best you can do?
You stupid KKKonservative Shit Sucker.
KKKonservative Nutbar Blogs are not peer reviewed scientific journals.
URAh MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNN
JOE
<Execute_The_Traitor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> "JOE" <Rel...@home.net> wrote
>>>> July 21, 2008
>>>> Oceanic Influences On Recent Continental Warming - An Important New
>>>> Research Paper: Compo and Sardeshmukh, 2008
Do as Al says, not as Al does
Lorne Gunter, National Post
Published: Monday, July 21, 2008
On Thursday, former U. S. vice-president Al Gore delivered a major
address calling on his country to abandon all fossil fuels within 10
years. By 2018, U. S. electricity and fuel should come entirely from
"renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources," he said.
Tickets to the event encouraged attendees to "please use public
transit, bicycling or other climate-friendly means" to reach the
lecture hall.
So how did Mr. Gore and his retinue arrive? In two Lincoln Town Cars
and a full-sized SUV that sat idling with the air conditioners
blasting while the Gore party was inside.
It was 34 C in Washington. Al Gore can't be expected to get into an
overheated vehicle after he's worked up a sweat telling others how to
save the planet.
Remember, too, the Nobel prizewinning environmentalist lives in a
Tennessee mansion that produces a carbon footprint 20 times that of
the average American home. A sizeable chunk of his personal fortune
comes from royalties on a zinc mine which had to be temporarily closed
five years ago in part because the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency ruled it one of the worst-polluting mine sites in America.
Illegal toxins were frequently discharged into nearby rivers.
Mr. Gore's Live Earth benefit concert last summer flew scores of rock
bands to stages around the world in carbon-spewing private jets. To
cover the emissions from his own frequent use of private jets, Mr.
Gore set up a company that buys carbon offsets, so that in effect he
is paying himself for his carbon indulgences, writing off the expense
on one hand, while pocketing the proceeds on the other.
Apparently if the world is ever to reach the carbon-free future Mr.
Gore dreams of, it will have to get there without Al's help.
But take heart, there is increasing evidence that man-made carbon
dioxide may not be causing global warming. Indeed, there is increasing
debate in the scientific community whether there is even any warming
occurring at all. Mr. Gore might just be able to keep going from jet
to limo to estate guilt-free (if not carbon-free) for as long as he
wishes.
On Tuesday, the Associated Press reported that seven mountain glaciers
in northern California were advancing. They joined glaciers in
southern Norway, Sweden, the New Zealand Alps and the Hindu Kush
mountains of Pakistan. Indeed, worldwide, there are nearly half as
many glaciers advancing as retreating.
How did the AP explain this? Well, all the shrinking glaciers it
mentioned in its story were melting due to global warming, while the
growing ones were "benefitting from changing weather patterns."
Glacier melt is proof of a climate crisis, while -- on the same
planet, under the same global conditions -- glacier advance is chalked
up as a mere natural phenomenon.
Facts that don't fit the global-warming dogma -- call them
inconvenient truths -- are to be dismissed as unimportant. Only those
that feed the environmental hysteria are proof of something ominous.
So I'm sure they're entirely inconsequential, but here, anyway, are
some anecdotes that cast doubt on the notion that emissions from our
SUVs and power plants are dangerously harming the climate.
Greenland isn't melting. And while Arctic sea ice may have thinned in
the past three decades by about 3% per decade, according to the U. S.
National Snow and Ice Date Center, Antarctic ice (which is about 20
times as voluminous as the Arctic kind) has grown by 1% per decade,
Also, after last summer's record melt in the Arctic, this summer's
melt in Antarctica was the smallest on record. And NASA satellites
have found that Arctic Sea ice coverage this year is more than one
million square kilo-metres greater than last year's, greater than the
average of the last three years and 10-20 centmetres thicker than in
2007. According to observations by the Danish Meteorological
Institute, we "have to go back 15 years to find ice expansion so far
south."
Snow coverage in North America this winter was greater than at any
time in recorded history. China had its worst winter in a century, and
the southern hemisphere its worst in the past 50 years.
And while global temperatures increased slightly in June, through the
end of May, the nine-month decline in temperatures beginning in
September was greater (0.8C) than all the warming of the 20th century
(0.6C).
All of this may prove nothing (although if these signals pointed
toward warming, you can bet they'd be billed as proof a coming climate
catastrophe). But they should at least give Mr. Gore comfort that he
need not sacrifice his high-carbon lifestyle just to prove he can walk
the walk.
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=668476
Landy
"V for Vendicar" <Execute_The_Traitor...@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:hQLhk.9$pm...@read2.cgocable.net...
You really are a screw loose.
V for Vendicar
"Landy" <no...@nowhere.net> wrote
> You really are a screw loose.
Meanwhile your fellow SHIT SACK REPUBLIKKKANS at the WALL STREET JOURNAL,
are claiming that BUSH IS BATMAN.
Ahahahahahahahaah
Talk about Desparate and Delusional.
hanson
>
> Talk about Desparate and Delusional...VD Scotty
and his phony and pitifully dilettante graph...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/0667dfa30dbab728?hl=en
>
>
>
V for Vendicar
hanson
policy edicts are not being taken for serious?... Awww....
Maybe then you shouldn't run after me like a little street
mutt who wants to bring the leash to his master hanson
.... Bit thanks for the laughs, VD Scotty.... ahahahansonin message news:tQuik.150$Wm...@read2.cgocable.net...
>
about his, VD Scotty's "Talk about Desparate and Delusional Mindless
Nonsense'... that gave "V for Vendicar" his AGW kidney stones:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/a71883a5f912196a?hl=en
and here's the explanation:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/0667dfa30dbab728?hl=en
ahahahaha... ahahahanson