Jump to content
Indian Motorcycle Community

An inconvenient truth


Recommended Posts

Gore's Bad Science

By Tom Harris

Canada Free Press | June 15, 2006

 

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth." With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

 

 

 

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

 

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

 

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

 

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

 

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

 

So we have a smaller fraction.

 

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

 

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

 

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

 

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

 

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

 

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

 

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

 

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

 

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

 

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

 

Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén

 

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

 

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

 

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

 

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

 

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on L.R. after all, the guy invented the internet, give him a break!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on L.R. after all, the guy invented the internet, give him a break!

 

 

 

Did Al Gore invent the Internet?

According to a CNN transcript of an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Al Gore said,"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Al Gore was not yet in Congress in 1969 when ARPANET started or in 1974 when the term Internet first came into use. Gore was elected to Congress in 1976. In fairness, Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf acknowledge in a paper titled Al Gore and the Internet that Gore has probably done more than any other elected official to support the growth and development of the Internet from the 1970's to the present .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why such a credible fella wasn't elected to the Presidency? Most likely the supreme court was biased because of it's Republican leanings? Or was it the hanging chads?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

XUXAW,

 

Remember when you asked me about global warming ... wondered if I thought it was also BS .... I do.

 

Maybe the temp is going up maybe not. Do "we" have anything to do with it? Nope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apart from all the information you just posted, it's been said that the entirety of man's CO2 creation, vs. the whole of CO2 in the atmosphere, is so minimal as to be a joke. The notion that the increase in our CO2 emissions is changing the climate is even more far-fetched.

 

I like our new Kyoto-scrapping, gun-registry killing Prime Minister. So far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

XUXAW,

 

Remember when you asked me about global warming ... wondered if I thought it was also BS .... I do.

 

Maybe the temp is going up maybe not. Do "we" have anything to do with it? Nope.

 

 

 

 

 

Wow… and you and your bride just had a baby. I would think you would be more open minded on this issue.

 

 

I can see it now, your little baby in 20 years asking you……..

 

 

Dad/mom…… "WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING"

 

 

Climate change or global warming is about science and only because we live in a society where believing in scientific truth has become controversial, some will not open their mind to change.

 

 

 

Earth's climate is changing…. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.

 

 

Regardless of how you feel about gore the politician, I think we all have a responsibility to see this film.

 

 

 

Maybe…just maybe…"YOU" could save the world from ignorance and inaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow… and you and your bride just had a baby. I would think you would be more open minded on this issue.

 

I can see it now, your little baby in 20 years asking you……..

 

Dad/mom…… "WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING"

 

Climate change or global warming is about science and only because we live in a society where believing in scientific truth has become controversial, some will not open their mind to change.

 

Earth's climate is changing…. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.

 

Regardless of how you feel about gore the politician, I think we all have a responsibility to see this film.

 

Maybe…just maybe…"YOU" could save the world from ignorance and inaction.

 

... and your idea of "science" outlawed silicon breast implants. There is just as much truth behind that "science" as there is behind Global Warming.

 

Just because many people repeat the same untruth and repeat it often dose not change the fact that it is an untruth.

 

More on the "JUNK SCIENCE" of Al Gore and his friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I can't take steroids, she can't stick silicone in her tits. You will never convince me there's a difference. Same for the rest of non-reconstructive plastic surgery.

 

I certainly believe Earth's climate could be changing. I believe man can have a significant impact on the environment, and we're pretty good at having a negative impact, but our contribution to the whole of the CO2 is negligible - even the global warming folks will concede that amount of CO2 contributed to man is but a miniscule fraction of the total CO2. How they manage to still insist it's the deciding factor in their skewed version of climate change is beyond me. There are far more important environmental issues to be addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the science behind the GW fad is akin to some of the 'science' still used under the guise of health. The BMI is my favourite junk scale to pick on. Body Mass Index takes a measure of your height and your weight and decides based on some completely arbitrary calculations whether you're fat or not.

 

Before I ever set foot in the gym I was a (semi-)solid 175lbs. Some poking and proding (and measuring) showed a rather sad 24% bodyfat level. So out of 175lbs, 42lbs of that was fat and my BMI was calculated as 'normal, healthy bodyweight. Not cool at all. The 2nd time I had my 'fat test' performed, I was 195lbs, 12% (23lbs) fat, BMI touching the 'overweight' section now. My 'best' test was 210lbs, 8% (17lbs) fat. BMI index says I was borderline obese. What possible good is the BMI scale if it doesn't take into account your ratio of muscle mass to fat mass?

 

Apply the formulas, methods and accepted definitions of the science that best attains the facts, not that best backs the theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and your idea of "science" outlawed silicon breast implants. There is just as much truth behind that "science" as there is behind Global Warming.

 

Just because many people repeat the same untruth and repeat it often dose not change the fact that it is an untruth.

 

More on the "JUNK SCIENCE" of Al Gore and his friends.

 

 

...and that's not even counting the fact that he almost got the south Park kids killed hunting for the outlandish "Man-Bear-Pig"

Half man, half bear, half pig....no, wait, half man, half bear-pig....

mandbearpig.....Damn you Gore and your moronic ideas!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I can't take steroids, she can't stick silicone in her tits. You will never convince me there's a difference.

 

That is apples to oranges. Plus there is abundant evidence on the ill effects of steroids backed up by real science.

 

 

 

Anyway, did you know there are no restrictions on testicular silicone implants for men? Did you know that if a woman is "ill" she can use silicone implants? If silicone is dangerous why would it be allowed in a woman with a compromised immune system to begin with or a man under any circumstance, yet not allowed to be used in a healthy woman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al Gore: I am here to educate you about the single biggest threat to our planet. You see, there is something out there which threatens our very existence and may be the end to the human race as we know it. I'm talking, of course, about 'ManBearPig.'

 

Kyle: ManBearPig?

 

Al Gore: It is a creature which roams the Earth alone. It is half man, half bear, and half pig. Some people say that ManBearPig isn't real. Well, I'm here to tell you now, ManBearPig is very real, and he most certainly exists--I'm cereal. ManBearPig doesn't care what you've done. ManBearPig just wants to get you. I'm super cereal. But have no fear, because I am here to save you. And someday, when the world is rid of ManBearPig, everyone will say, "Thank you Al Gore--you're super awesome!" The end.

 

Mr. Mackey: Uh, Okay. Thank You, Mr. Gore.

 

Al Gore: Thank you class. Excelsior!

 

Here's more transcripts of Al Gores lies..this time to a firefighter:

 

Al Gore: Excuse me. excuse me! This cave-in was no accident, and it isn't going to stop unless we move fast. I am super, duper cereal.

Rescue Leader: What do you mean, the cave-in is over.

Al Gore: I'm afraid you have a much bigger problem than a cave-in.

(Al Gore holds up a sketch of ManBearPig)

Fireman: What is that a Pigbearman?

Al Gore: No stupid, it’s a ManBearPig.

Edited by kcchief
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the take-home messages:

  • The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
  • The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 °C.
  • The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
  • The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
  • There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
  • The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)
  • Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
  • Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
  • Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
  • There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.
  • Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
  • Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is apples to oranges. Plus there is abundant evidence on the ill effects of steroids backed up by real science.

 

 

 

Anyway, did you know there are no restrictions on testicular silicone implants for men? Did you know that if a woman is "ill" she can use silicone implants? If silicone is dangerous why would it be allowed in a woman with a compromised immune system to begin with or a man under any circumstance, yet not allowed to be used in a healthy woman?

 

Not to mention, many women use flexible dildos to stuff in them...and what do you think THEY"RE made of???

Yup...Silicone!

 

What are the take-home messages:

  • The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
  • The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 °C.
  • The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
  • The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
  • There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
  • The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)
  • Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
  • Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
  • Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
  • There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.
  • Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
  • Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.

 

 

It still doesn't disprove the manbearpig theory, Mr. Smarty-Pants!

I'm CEREAL!!

 

Real video-Proof Gore is crazy::

 

manbearpig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh please. The ill effects of steroids, proven by real science. It's also been proven by real science that alcohol has permanent, ill side effects. A diet high in trans-fats has ill side effects - real science. Type-II diabetes is linked to a diet high in refined sugars and other carbohydrates - real science. Anything taken to extreme is unhealthy. The whole reason half the steroid use is fucked up is because folks have to go underground in the first place. If you had access to a legit doctor, that was actually up-to-date on steroid protocols (and wasn't trying to sell you refined vet steroids), you could have a very healthy and effective program. I'm not going to go so far as to say you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about beyond what the media has fed you, but I'm willing to bet you're not particularly well-versed in the appropriate use of anabolic steroids. Whether or not women use silicone, saline or styrofoam isn't the point - surgery is dangerous. If it's acceptable for folks to use dangerous methods for cosmetic (EGO) enhancement, then steroids should be in the same class - doctor prescribed and recommended. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to go so far as to say you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about beyond what the media has fed you, but I'm willing to bet you're not particularly well-versed in the appropriate use of anabolic steroids.

 

 

 

or global warming :rotfl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...