An inconvenient truth

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by 7960

you agree with 90% of it, but how much of what he said is actually right?

(less than 90%, that's for sure)

watch the movie, its about an hour and a half. At least you will learn something about the personal life of one of the more important politicans of this time period. You can decide what to believe and what not to believe.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

However, the data he had was correct and presented well. I would say 90% of his data was correct and would only question the data in regards to future projections.

of course projections are just that, projections. They are sensitive to many many factors, the development of the third world being IMO the most sensitive.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Persuasion does not = Truth. Documentaries, including the non-politcal variety you find on Discovery and history channel, are poor forums of debate. They tend to be produced by people with a message in mind and an audience for that message. I have not seen the film, but I don't doubt there is good evidence in it. But you also get a touch of visual drama and emotional string pulling.

Here are some examples by a writer who does think humans cause Global Warming:



Reason Magazine - An Inconvenient Truth



You do not serve "truth" by playing with exageration games and fear tactics. You don't convert the skeptics by preaching to the choir of the already converted. All of them ready to hear the worst without question. There was a lesson in the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf! And yes the final lesson was a real wolf.....

I'm not looking for a writer that has a political bent, I am looking for peer reviewed scientific literature that says our current climate change is not being affected by human activity

[7960]

Originally Posted by Winter

EXACTLY!!! Couldn't have said it better myself, DC.

So let's ask a leading climatologist who is also expert in the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...ming020507.htm

Trying to argue logic with some people is just a waste of energy.

I know, it's quite frustrating when I talk to people who can't form a logical argument!

[7960]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

At least you will learn something about the personal life of one of the more important politicans of this time period.

wtf.................... I thought Gore was the star of the movie

[7960]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I'm not looking for a writer that has a political bent, I am looking for peer reviewed scientific literature that says our current climate change is not being affected by human activity

You won't find that because WE DON'T KNOW. The people who say it is definitely 100% true are being intellectually dishonest. They don't know.



(I'm not saying it's not true. I'm not saying we shouldn't be working to clean up the environment. I'm not saying a whole bunch of stuff you're thinking I'm saying........... I'm saying scientists do not know and the ones who are saying they *know* it's true are full of shit.)

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 7960

So let's ask a leading climatologist who is also expert in the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist.
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

I know, it's quite frustrating when I talk to people who can't form a logical argument!

Why is this guy right, and the other "leading" climatologists wrong?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Why is this guy right, and the other "leading" climatologists wrong?

What does it even take to be a Climatologist? What do physicists think about all these models and theories?


Interesting:


"Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus."

[Kytro]

Global cooling was never accepted by mainstream science the way global warming has been. It did get a lot of media attention though

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by 7960

wtf.................... I thought Gore was the star of the movie

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

What does it even take to be a Climatologist? What do physicists think about all these models and theories?

Climatology and Meteorology both take a lot of Physics and Math...a great deal.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Why is this guy right, and the other "leading" climatologists wrong?

I didn't say he's right and the other guys are wrong. I said (he said) Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 7960

I didn't say he's right and the other guys are wrong. I said (he said) Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist.

That is what he says, but I have yet to see any convincing evidence to support his position.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by 7960

So let's ask a leading climatologist who is also expert in the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist.
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

Tim Ball is bankrolled by big oil:

Few in the audience have any idea that Prof. Ball hasn't published on climate science in any peer-reviewed scientific journal in more than 14 years. They do not know that he has been paid to speak to federal MPs by a public-relations company that works for energy firms. Nor are they aware that his travel expenses are covered by a group supported by donors from the Alberta oil patch.

Andrew Weaver is the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria, and a lead author of a chapter in the upcoming IPCC report. He gives a frustrated sigh at the mention of Tim Ball's cross-country tour.



"He says stuff that is just plain wrong. But when you are talking to crowds, when you are talking on TV, there is no challenge, there is no peer review," Prof. Weaver says.



Like other senior scientists, he charges that Prof. Ball's arguments are a grab bag of irrelevancies and falsehoods: "Ball says that our climate models do not [account for the warming effects of] water vapour. That's absurd. They all do."



Likewise, he says, Prof. Ball's claims that climate change could be explained by variations in the earth's orbit or by sunspots are discounted by widely available data.



Many of Prof. Ball's other arguments don't stand up to scrutiny. Consider the hockey-stick graph: He was right that the U.S. Academies of Science had delivered a review of climate science to Congress. But their report concluded that temperatures in the last 25 years really have been the highest in 400 years. Moreover, the panelists assured reporters that there was no evidence at all that the Mann team cherry-picked its data - completely contradicting what Prof. Ball told his audience in Comox.



"What Ball is doing is not about science," says Prof. Weaver. "It is about politics."



Leaders throughout Europe have accepted the IPCC position on climate change, and have been looking for ways to take collective action, primarily via the Kyoto Accord. Yet North Americans have lagged behind, hamstrung by a lingering debate in the media and among politicians about climate science.



How did this doubt take hold?



In a now-infamous 2003 memo, U.S. pollster and consultant Frank Luntz advised Republican politicians to cultivate uncertainty when talking about climate change: "Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate ," wrote Mr. Luntz (the italics are his own).



Nurturing doubt about climate-change science has become big business for public-relations companies and lobbyists south of the border. Between 2000 and 2003, ExxonMobil alone gave more than $8.6-million (U.S.) to think tanks, consumer groups and policy organizations engaged in anti-Kyoto messaging, according to the company's own records. Those groups promote the minority of scientists who still dispute the IPCC consensus on climate change, creating the appearance of widespread scientific disagreement.

<mrcool>

it was featured in a Globe and Mail story, but they want you to pay for it.

I will take over 2,000 peer reviewed scientists over a small group of nonpeer reviewed scientists that are bankrolled by big oil

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

Predictions are just that, predictions. I would expect them to change based on new data being available.

Maybe you can provide more information about the bias you're talking about?

The past week there's been four articles in the WSJ on the IPCC report. Three of those four (two of the four being opinion pieces) point out the large problems with the IPCC.

The article is on my desk at work, I'll get some cliffs tomorrow. You might swing by the school library and thumb through the WSJ for the last 8 or so days.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

The past week there's been four articles in the WSJ on the IPCC report. Three of those four (two of the four being opinion pieces) point out the large problems with the IPCC.

The article is on my desk at work, I'll get some cliffs tomorrow. You might swing by the school library and thumb through the WSJ for the last 8 or so days.

Reporters at the WSJ...or hundreds of the best scientists on the planet...so hard to choose

[RMNIXON]

And now the Chinese enter the act....

FT.com / Asia-Pacific / China - China blames the west for global warming


China blames the west for global warming

By Mure Dickie in Beijing
Published: February 6 2007 18:07 | Last updated: February 6 2007 18:07


Rich industrialised nations must take the lead in cutting greenhouse gases since they bear the “unshirkable responsibility” for causing global warming, a Chinese official said on Tuesday.

The comments by a foreign ministry spokeswoman underscore China’s determination not to allow international action on climate change to undermine its economic development.


Rapid economic growth, a huge population and inefficient industry have made China the world’s second largest carbon emitter after the US – new data show that power generating capacity in the country in 2006 expanded by an amount equal to the entire capacity of the UK and Thailand combined. But the country’s per capita emissions have remained far below the global average.

“It must be pointed out that climate change has been caused by the long-term historic emissions of developed countries and their high per-capita emissions,” Reuters news agency quoted Jiang Yu, a foreign ministry spokeswoman, at a briefing on Tuesday.....


.....However, the comments by Ms Jiang and Mr Qin offer no encouragement for international critics who feel that China should impose limits on its greenhouse gas emissions.

Beijing has been reluctant to discuss what role it might play in carbon curbs after the present provisions of the Kyoto Protocol expire in 2012.

Along with India and other developing countries, China was exempted from emissions curbs under the protocol, which was anyway never ratified by the US.

Mr Qin made clear that other countries should not expect too much of China.

__________________________________________________ _______________


No, I don't expect much from China!

[Thorgrim]

why should you care about what china has to say, its all a fraud anyway?

[6SpeedTA95]

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/a...2006forWeb.pdf

Gore's inconvenient lie*-*Commentary*-*The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

OpinionJournal - Extra

The Global Warming Lies (Flopping Aces)

Global Warming: So What Else Is New?



Great read
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa329.pdf

Global Warming: The Anatomy of a Debate



Another great read
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa576.pdf

ib10+pagearticlesareunacceptable

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim