Scientists Respond to Gore on Global Warming 1496
ArthurDent writes "For quite a while global warming has been presented in the public forum as a universally accepted scientific reality. However, in the light of Al Gore's new film An Inconvenient Truth many climate experts are stepping forward and pointing out that there is no conclusive evidence to support global warming as a phenomenon, much less any particular cause of it."
Some bold statements from this article (Score:4, Informative)
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"
Strangely enough this is from a website that is sporting anti-bush t-shirts, buttons, and bumper stickers
Windows Admin Tools [intelliadmin.com]
As a rule of thumb (Score:3, Informative)
And Who Happens to Fund the Article's Author? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.
The website he writes for also did a great piece on how McDonalds was good for you, after they took a bunch of cash from McDonalds.
Paid Off (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.
Comment removed (Score:1, Informative)
What RealClimate.org thought about it (Score:5, Informative)
There's lots more in the actual article.
And this is the guy who wrote the above entry:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/200
Re:Finally... (Score:3, Informative)
This guy is an oil company shill. (Score:5, Informative)
It's funny how I get a hopeful feeling when I see that there may still be some credible debate on this topic. Sadly the truth really is inconvenient, and depressing.
CFP Bias (Score:5, Informative)
Interesting rebuttal/attack piece on Tom Harris (Score:3, Informative)
Questionable Source? (Score:5, Informative)
Read, but read with caution. The author is paid to have his opinion.
Re:And Who Happens to Fund the Article's Author? (Score:5, Informative)
"Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company."
How this made the front page of
Re:Some bold statements from this article (Score:3, Informative)
You prove:
o component A by itself has no effect (negative)
o something A by itself has no effect (negative)
o component A mixed with something A has an effect (positive)
o component A mixed with anything else B has no effect (negative)
o anything else B mixed with something A has no effect (negative)
right. credibility (Score:5, Informative)
a quick google for the researcher the article focuses on [google.com] shows that he doesn't publish. his main credits are online opinion pieces, and the closes thing to a publication i found (the second page of the google) is a .doc file on his labratory's webspace
if anyone can find anything peer-reviewed by this guy, i'd be keen to see it
Mr. Bob Carter - Puppet, or "the Real Thing" ? (Score:2, Informative)
Yup, check some of the authors they hilight (Score:4, Informative)
I saw a similar article making similar claims yesterday and the "experts" they sited weren't even in the field of climatology, and had gone so far as to fake a letter from the National Academy of Sciences to give their position a supposed credence.
Show me one peer reviewed scientific paper that says anything other than global warming is happening and it's caused by human emissions of CO2. To my knowledge, this does not exist. I recognize that peer review is somewhat prone to group think, and in that you might expect a leaning one direction or another. But to have ZERO? That seems rather dramatic to just be a group think issue.
A lot of the "scientists" that I've seen taking a position on this are clearly hucksters working for the likes of Exxon Mobile, etc. I have little doubt that there are some scientists who are legitimate who don't buy into the common thinking, but that doesn't mean the common thinking is wrong. They need to back up their beliefs with sound evidence and method. But they don't.
Re:And Who Happens to Fund the Article's Author? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/57
Some people would consider Prof. Carter to be an organ of said corporations.
Of course it's entirely possible that Prof. Carter is correct, as the Science article points out. But in light of the evidence, I'm inclined to think that this is a FUD campaign rather than a sound argument from a trusted authority.
Slashdot editorial standards at their finest (Score:3, Informative)
- Christianity under Attack: Assault against America's Christian traditions continue
- The ultimate epithet in the liberal lexicon
- Throw the U.N. on the Ash Heap of History
Do I need to continue? Jesus Christ, Slashdot! Do you do any sort of editorial fact checking before posting a story - under Science!
No Digg.
X
Re:Some bold statements from this article (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Some bold statements from this article (Score:3, Informative)
2.) http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.
Truly independant assestment of Global Warming? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What do you expect? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What Gore Said Was... (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26
From her editorial:
There have been arguments to the contrary, but they are not to be found in scientific literature, which is where scientific debates are properly adjudicated. There, the message is clear and unambiguous.
The Journal of Science paper in which she details her survey can be found here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306
Naturally, claims of bias in the right-leaning popular press have followed. See this U.K. Telegraph article for an example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/n
Re:Some bold statements from this article (Score:5, Informative)
The man never claimed invention of the internet.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp [snopes.com]
This article is so ridiculous (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy [wikipedia.org]
Real Climate also has more on it:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/200
The speaker ended his presentation to our class by saying that his generation would have to spend their whole lives convincing others that there is a problem and that it would be up to us to come up with solutions to it. But by then it might be too late. So let's stop listening to random scientists from random institutions (UAH, JCU, or Carleton, or what have you) that are of little scientific repute and think about reducing vehicle emissions. If anything we will have better air quality so there is no harm in trying except that a few higher-ups in major corporations make less money.
Not this again... (Score:3, Informative)
What's next? Stories pointing to junkscience.com?
Re:Yup, check some of the authors they hilight (Score:2, Informative)
that global warming is real but caused by solar irradiation: http://www.state.nd.us/ndgs/Newsletter/NL01W/PDF/
Sorry 'bout the PDF.
Re:The debate will never end (Score:3, Informative)
We'll know if the alarmists were right in 30 years.
We already know the alarmists from 30 years ago were wrong.
Re:Monthly Carbon Dioxide Measurements (Score:3, Informative)
Sheesh. The largest increase in CO2 emissions by humans was between 1900 and 1940. Yet, the Earth somehow responded with a massive wave of cooling from 1950-1980 that caused many scientists to worry we were plunging into the next ice age. You are extrapolating 30 years of data out by a century or more. Bad Science! No Doughnut!
The fact is that we are in a period of CO2 starvation on the planet. Recent estimates have suggested that the increase in CO2 in the modern era is responsible for as much as 30% of the "extra" food that has helped to feed more than a billion people in the last 50 years. If Gore had his 280 ppm, we might be able to lay one billion people who starved to death at his feet. The law of unintended consequences runs rampant in this "catastrophe". http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/a
And it's not like the Earth hasn't been warmer before in human history. In the 12th century there were orange groves in Berlin and vineyards in England. http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm [john-daly.com]
Re:Some bold statements from this article (Score:3, Informative)
And this action of his came long *after* the Internet already existed.
Re:Some bold statements from this article (Score:5, Informative)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=185179271
Probably the best hour I've spent recently. The last speaker actually published an article in Nature specifically talking about the media's miscoverage of this issue. To sum up; there is no debate on global warming. The debate is on the details.
From the description in on google:
Renowned science scholar Naomi Oreskes and science producer Gene Rosow discuss how Hollywood and the news media portray global warming and
We pulled this story off of Technocrat.net (Score:5, Informative)
I've my own doubts about global warming, but it does seem that the "con" side are often folks who are paid to have those opinions.
Bruce
Re:Some bold statements from this article (Score:5, Informative)
Also, the average temperature of the planet has increased by 1 degree C since the late 1800s. The grounded Antarctic ice cap grew between 1992 and 2003, lessening any sea level increase by about 0.12mm per year . Thermal expansion represents roughly 120mm of MSL for a 1 degree temperature increase. The evidence for this is readily available - I just Googled it.
See the problem? The Wise Statesman was right.
-h-
Re:The debate will never end (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What do you expect? (Score:4, Informative)
The Clinton administration did not ratify the Kyoto protocol. It never intended to. Gore signed it "symbolically", whatever the heck that means, but they never actually submitted the protocol to the Senate. More here [wikipedia.org]. Gore might have been a big fan of Kyoto, but his administration never was.
Seems to me you've got three outright lies, and one complete irrelevancy
Seems to me you've got one piece of non-truth there.
Re:Gore already covered this on SNL (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Some bold statements from this article (Score:2, Informative)
If you need a little experiment to try at home, let me know.
Drudge Report Propaganda (Score:5, Informative)
There is only one other article [canadafreepress.com] by Tom Harris at CFP, but I found another at National Post [canada.com], both attacking climate change. Canada Free Press [wikipedia.org] and National Post [wikipedia.org] are both conservative newspapers, particularly the latter. According to the byline, Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group. And what is the High Park Group [highparkgroup.com], seeing as how their web page say absolutely nothing of substance? Why it's an industry shill [stikeman.com].
Dig a little deeper and you'll find this [sierraclub.ca] from way back in 2002. It has quite a bit more to say.
If you know more say so.
Of course, articles about "scientists" refuting global warming are a dime a dozen, and go against the plain fact that the vast majority of climate scientists are firmly convinced of its existence.
And for the record when I looked at the article before it was running an ad pushing Condaleeza Rice for president... in a Canadian newspaper no less.
Article appears to be rubbish (Score:5, Informative)
Of course they were:
http://rondam.blogspot.com/2006/04/global-warming
http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/ [timlambert.org]
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2005/04
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php
Furthermore, even though the FCP article tries to paint Carter as an independent, ExxonSecrets.org links him to "Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station". Here's what the site lists as their details:
The entire Canadian Free Press article loses credibility because of this line:
A non-industry expert who works for a place that's paid for by Exxon.
I can't believe this article got posted on the main page. I guess since Al Gore's in a movie, posting some already-been-written article quoting a few paid shills who say he's lying had to be done to keep things politically balanced. I personally think news links should only be posted if they actually represent reality.
Watch your sources Slashdot !! (Score:5, Informative)
I wouldn't be surprised if Gore did go to far - few things are as certain as they are presented to us by either side. However, the article goes way too far and ignores the fact that the general concensus of the scientific community is in line with what Gore is saying.
So, it makes me wonder what this strange website is? It is run out of my city (Toronto) and yet I've never heard of it. I don't see a bio of the author on the website, but I note that the two main authors involved in this website are from the Toronto Sun and Fox News. I don't need to say anthing about FOX, but you might not have heard of the Toronto Sun. It is a right wing tabloid, featuring girly pictures on page 2. You probably have one in your city, so you know what I mean.
Re:right. credibility (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, sounds like he does publish pretty much on the subject
in peer reviewed journals, including Science.
Re:Some bold statements from this article (Score:5, Informative)
I am not going to disagree with anything you say here because I would say it is all entirely correct. However, from what I remember of my history of science, nothing gets the label of "law" anymore, only "Theory". Law was the original name used to signify scientific "laws" in the 1700s-1800s IIRC.
It was changed to "Theory" in the 1900's as some "laws" had been disproven. So, in fact, the term "Law" is depricated, and has been replaced by theory.
This of course, causes consternation for scientists when creationists decry evolution as a "theory" and not a "law".
(Sorry for the lack of exact date ranges, I don't remember the specifics from history of science, and of course, I have none of the material at hand at the moment.)
Who does the author work for? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:The movie points this out (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.norvig.com/oreskes.html [norvig.com]
Judge for yourself.
Re:Some bold statements from this article (Score:5, Informative)
There are a lot of facts. It is how one interprets those facts that is the problem.
For example.
- It is a fact that a gas bubble trapped in arctic
ice at a certain depth contained 3.4% carbon dioxide. (That's an example of a fact, not necessarily true.)
- It is a fact that ice in that region acreted at a rate of 0.3 m/year over the last year. (It was measured.)
- It is not a fact that the age of the bubble is depth/0.3 years. That requires an assumption that the
acretion rate was constant, and is not itself a fact.
- It is likewise not a fact that the atmosphere at the time the bubble was captured (whenever that was) was 3.4% carbon dioxide. It requires an assumption that there is no mechanism that would result in a change of concentration of various gases trapped in ice.
Similarly:- It is a fact that the average temperature of a certain region of land is X degrees today. That was measured.
- It is a fact that the average temperature of the same piece of land last year was Y degrees. It, too, was measured.
- It is not a fact that the temperature of that same piece of land was Z degrees four hundred years ago. A) there was no measurement taken then, and B) the estimates are based on measurements of other things and then assumptions about how they relate to temperature. It is those assumtions that changes Z from a fact into a theory.
- It is not a fact that the piece of land is X-Y degrees warmer that it used to be, even though both X and Y are facts. There is no knowledge that the means of measuring X and Y were the same, so one or the other or both may have a deterministic error. For example, satellite temperature measurements are regularly refined to take into account various factors that had not been previously. The change in how the data were processed may result in a bogus "increase" in temperature (or a similar bogus "decrease".)
Yes, there are lots of facts. It is important to differentiate between what is a fact and what is a theory. "Global warming" and "anthropogenically caused global warming" are both theories.Biased slam piece from top to bottom. (Score:3, Informative)
But hey, the maybe posting a valid article. Let us see who wrote it.
Tom Harris wrote the article. He is a PR person working for PR/Lobby firm High Park group. They don't say who they are working for, but this guy is paid to have this opinion. I suppose it is possible that he was paid by some concerned for the environment corporation, but I have my doubts.
http://www.highparkgroup.com/services.htm [highparkgroup.com]
How about the Scientists:
Bob Carter. First "Scientist" quoted. Known climate change skeptic, Member of Institue of public affairs: Lobby group.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Instit
Funded by Oil/Gas/Mining/Pesticide/Logging corporations.
Bob wrote this Gem of a piece about protectin Austrailians from the dreaded disease "Mother Earhism":
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=
"Compare these tiny changes with the experience of an Australian citizen who moves from Hobart to Darwin to live. Such a person experiences a change in annual average temperature of 18C, which is accommodated quite happily by wearing fewer clothes, drinking more beer and trading in one's heater for an air conditioner."
There you go folks, just wear less clothing and global warming will be a non issue.
I really have to wonder who falls for this stuff.
Not to mention wondering about the sellouts who write this stuff.
Re:Some bold statements from this article (Score:5, Informative)
I have two responses to this:
1) The notion that there's no gain from reducing carbon emissions - even in the unlikely event that there turns out to be no effect on long-term global temperatures - is patently absurd. Offhand I can name benefits: improved air quality with attendant lower of non-carbon aerosols like mercury and uranium (which would lead to lower incidence of many diseases), less acidification of lakes and other bodies of water, reduction of ecosystem damage in bodies of water like the Gulf of Mexico (large stretches of which are now hypoxic to anoxic), an extraordinary leap in energy efficiency as a generation of industrial machines are upgraded to modern versions, and finally a reduction in global economic instability as energy sources are made more distributed. And that's just off the top of my head. So it's hard to argue that this money is a vast waste.
2) There is a very simple and very reliable way to approach situations where the outcomes are not well known: risk analysis. Every day, all over the world, people assess the severity of risks and the likelihood of that contingency occurring. By basically multiplying (convolving, whatever you like) the risk by the severity of the outcome, you get a good metric for whether to try to mitigate a particular risk. In this case, the risks (as Gore's movie well illustrates) are extraordinary, so even those with less likelihood merit active mitigation strategies. And given that the conversion from emitting to non-emitting energy sources does not require science particularly beyond our grasp to accomplish, it's impossible to argue that we can't take active steps to mitigate the risk. So why do the same people who employ risk mitigation all over the place (e.g. insurance, tort "reform") argue so furiously against anything like this on a large scale?
Finally, it bears mentioning that the scientists in this article (only two of who are named) are an extraordinary minority - the vast bulk of climate scientists (and I know many personally, thanks to a degree in ocean physics) are in agreement that human activities are contributing to global warming. So while these folks are entitled to their opinions, scientific or otherwise, it's pretty misleading of this here Canada Free Press to present them as a mainstream view.
Author knows ALL about propaganda... (Score:3, Informative)
High Park Group's is proud to offer our clients a wide range of services, including:
- policy and strategic consulting
- project development
- project management
- issues management
- research initiatives and analysis
- economic analytics
- direct lobbying
- event planning
- media relations
- fundraising
Re:But what do these guys know about the Internet? (Score:2, Informative)
Sure, he made that comment when he was running for President in 2000, but realize he had left the Senate 8 years prior. So sure, you might've been using the Internet for 9 years, but any biils he championed in Congress undoubtedly came about before you got online. And the Internet of 1991 was quite a bit different than the ARPANET that was around when Gore was first elected Senator in 1984.
I'm inclined to believe the guys who actually designed the Internet's infrastructure (such as Vint Cerf) when they agree publicly that Al Gore had a strong positive impact on the Internet we know today. He was, after all, on the Commerce, Science and Transportation committee in the Senate, and eventually became chairman of that committee.
--JoeRe:Getting published isn't that difficult (Score:5, Informative)
Tim Patterson http://http-server.carleton.ca/~tpatters/publicati ons/2002_04.html [carleton.ca]
Bob Carter http://www.es.jcu.edu.au/research/msgbs.html [jcu.edu.au]
Timothy Ball http://www.envirotruth.org/drball.cfm [envirotruth.org]
Boris Winterhalter http://www.kolumbus.fi/boris.winterhalter/papers.h tm [kolumbus.fi]
Wibjörn Karlén http://www.misu.su.se/research/reconstruction_nh.h tml [misu.su.se] Look the graphic of the papaer
Dick Morgan http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Dick+Morg an+site%3Aexeter.ac.uk&btnG=Search [google.com]He don't even have a page on Exeter
I think they are a sample of the unqualified scientist the article talks about.Re:right. credibility (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But what do these guys know about the Internet? (Score:5, Informative)
You seem to be implying that all Al Gore did was go to Congress sometime in the 90's and say, "Hey guys, this Internet thing is really cool!". As other posters have pointed out, some of the core innovators in what we now call the Internet credit Gore for his work at making the Internet what it is. I trust them more than I trust you.
Let's get specific, though. According to Did Al Gore Invent the Internet? [perkel.com]
That bill passed in 1988, several years before you started using the net (not that your personal experience matters at all on this issue).Some nice things that that bill did, besides sponsor Andreesen? It set up a national computing plan, it linked research centers and universities across the country, and it funded a lot of other important research.
Did Al Gore invent the internet? No. He did sponsor the bills that provided funding and vision for some key components of it, though.
BTW, to say you were there to see the Internet created, and then say you've been on the Internet since 1990 is idiotic. The net's been around a lot longer than that. The ARPANET, which is what evolved into the Internet, has been around since 1969. Email came along in 1972. TCP/IP a year later, and things just grew from there. Let me quote from A Brief History of the Internet [isoc.org]
What is probably true is that your first exposure to the Internet came because of a project that was made possible by the bills that Al Gore sponsored. So, think of it from your own point of view - you got to use the Internet in 1990 because of Al Gore.Why I distrust this article. (Score:4, Informative)
Climate change experts, like most scientists, tend to be pretty circumspect with their public statements and avoid hyperbole, so the quotes calling Gore "pathetic" and "an embarrassment" are a red flag as well.
Any "feature" article is going to have something of a slant--and there's nothing wrong with that--but the words in article seemed so consistently well-chosen that they seemed vetted by some PR flack versed in the art of using words to sell your opinions to stupid people.
While that's not enough, in itself, to make me disregard the article, it did make me want to see what I could find out about this "Tom Harris" guy who wrote it. Turns out this guy has made something of a cottage industry out of "debunking" global warming, and in at least one case has co-written an article with the Patterson he quotes in this article. He doesn't disclose this fact, although, in fairness, it was written for a "journal" that, amazingly for 2006, has no web presence.
Harris also wrote another article along the same lines as this one, entitled "The Gods Are Laughing", which you can find here:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/
This one starts out with a lead paragraph that points out that *real* scientists disagree with "liberal arts graduate" Gore about global warming. More red flags here, because people with a good case to make generally don't have to resort to challenging the scientific credentials of their opponents.
The fact that Gore has no PhD in climatology isn't really germane to the debate, although it seems to be a major focus of these pairs of articles. Although once certainly needs some advanced training to conduct climatology research, one would hope that you wouldn't need to go to school for eight years just to be able to read the conclusions section of a peer-reviewed paper. Else, what's the point of doing research, if your findings can only be conveyed to other scientist who are already working from 99.9% of the same knowledge base as you? And one certainly doesn't need a PhD to talk to climatologists and build a consensus view of their opinions.
The director of the atmosphere and energy bits of the Sierra Club of Canada wrote a missive below that explains in more detail a few of the shady rhetorical tricks Harris uses, and which I have alluded to above:
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/postings/climat
Personally, I'm starting to lean toward the this-guy-is-a-shill theory, myself.
Melting ice and water level (Score:5, Informative)
More important that all of that, of course, is the fact that while the arctic ice pack sits on water, the antarctic one sits largely on land ... and that Greenland also supports a significant ice pack. Since these are supported by the land (not buoyant force), when they melt, they would significantly raise the waterlevel globally.
Re:The movie points this out (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The debate will never end (Score:1, Informative)
There's a huge amount of non-US scientists working this stuff. Many employed by european governments.
Re:What Gore Said Was... (Score:4, Informative)
From the Science article [sciencemag.org]:
So they just grabbed everything, and evaluated the papers' position on the consensus view of global warming. 75% Implictly or explicitly supported it, 25% did not offer a position (mostly these were methods papers detailing a method not a result, or paleoclimate papers that did not deal with current climate issues), and 0% disagreed with the consensus view.
And to be specific, the consensus view is "Human activities
The fact that you can find a small number of cranks to claim that global warming is "debatable" really means very little, see Flat Earth Society [wikipedia.org], etc etc. The scientific community as a whole has made up their mind, and it is clear that global warming caused by humans is occuring.
-Ted
Re:Some bold statements from this article (Score:2, Informative)
such as the temperatures recorded at sites that used to be in rural areas, but are now in suburban or urban areas, due to the growth of cities. The global-warming advocates admit that the urbanization itself causes the temperature readings to increase, but that they apply a correction factor to account for that increase. However, if you press them for details on the correction factor, it's based on estimates of how much a given amount of urbanization will increase the temperature -- making the resultant temperature data suspect. There are other 'corrections' that result in the warming being overstated, such as reduction in nighttime cooling [colostate.edu] due to increased cloudiness and other factors, which results in overstatement of temperature increases. For example, this page [warwickhughes.com] shows how improper data collection and adjustment skews the data (in this case, the premise that moving the data collection station can eliminate the urban heat island warming); after applying an empirical correction for the urban heat island, the average temperature at the Sydney station has decreased over the last century. While one data point is functionally useless for projecting an overall trend, it does illustrate the lack of scientific rigor in the collection of temperature data.
Re:Some bold statements from this article (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Some bold statements from this article (Score:1, Informative)
There is a very large, natural variation in CO2 levels over the history of Earth. So far that range is regular and constant within 300 million ppmv [wikimedia.org] over the last 650,000 years we have available. In 1958 this was found to be 315 ppmv, at the peak of recorded history. In 2003 this value was a whopping 376 ppmv. Initial reports say that current levels are over 400 ppmv. That is 33% higher than it has ever been in the last 650,000 years. And that is considering, to paraphrase the movie, that the difference between 300ppmv and 100ppmv in the United States Midwest is the difference between a sunny day and a mile of ice over your head. Nevermind the fact that with China and India the projections estimate C02 levels to sharply rise even higher. This is already WAY TOO HIGH.
As for your 1942-1980 argument, I find it immaterial when faced with the evidence at hand. But I do think there is a potential explanation in air pollution reflecting back solar radiation and masking the effects of global warming. This period of history is well known for its smog and heavy air pollution that was cleaned up through the 1970's and beyond.
There is no doubt that there is a direct correlation between CO2 and global mean temperature. CO2 levels are higher than they have been in the past 650,000 years. The cause of the rise in CO2 is man made. In a review of 932 peer reviewed scientific journal articles related to global warming, zero refuted this chain of logic. A separate review of mass media articles, 56% of the articles were found to openly doubt the science that the scientific community has no doubts about.
Wikipedia Global Warming article [wikipedia.org]
The author of TFA is a lobbyest (Score:2, Informative)
See his web site : http://www.highparkgroup.com/ [highparkgroup.com]
If you pay his company enough, he will represent whatever view you need. What to chip together and make him pro-global warming?
Outing Greenhouse Deniers is Easy (Score:5, Informative)
Just look at their actual resumes, of course not quoted by "Canada's Fastest Growing Independent News Source", probably also funded by the Canadian Greenhouse industry and their global Murdoch partners.
Tim Patterson [carleton.ca] is a geologist, not a climate scientist - exactly the kind of scientist the BS article excludes to fake its conclusion that most Greenhouse scientists aren't qualified.
Boris Winterhalter [kolumbus.fi] is also a geologist, not a climatologist.
Geologists mostly work for the oil business, which is where most of the money for the entire science comes from, their peers who review, their "next gig pool".
Bob Carter [jcu.edu.au] doesn't even rate a page at his tiny Australian department where he's just an "Adjunct" professor.
Timothy Ball [envirotruth.org]'s "EnviroTruth" org is a division of the National Center for Public Policy Research, an front for Exxon Greenhouse denial [sourcewatch.org] propaganda and other Vast RightWing Conspiracy [google.com] players.
Wibjörn Karlén [misu.su.se]'s research supports Gore, but he signs the BS letter anyway.
Dick Morgan doesn't have an Exeter page, nor does he have [google.com]">any recorded association [slashdot.org] with the World Meteorological Association, so he has no credentials whatsoever, apart from lying.
These people are professional Greenhouse deniers. That Canadian panel and its Canadian tabloid (an obvious rightwing rag, just looking at its front page) are cheap fronts for the polluters responsible for the Greenhouse. They're not even trying to hide it more than a couple of googles and clicks deep, they hate us so much. And judging from the hundreds of posts in this story falling for it, we are that stupid.
Re:Some bold statements from this article (Score:5, Informative)
Pay better attention then. [wikipedia.org] In summary, human-caused particulate emissions reflect sunlight, offsetting some of the effects of CO2-caused warming. In the past couple decades, this type of pollution has lessened, allowing the CO2-caused warming to reveal itself in all its glory.
Until then, I have to listen to all this noise. sigh.
Tell me about it.
Re:Some bold statements from this article (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, if you have actually followed the scientific literature on global warming, you know that the reality is not a rigid orthodoxy imposed from above, but rather a slowly emerging consensus over the past couple of decades. Whereas early theoretical models tended to make divergent predictions, as the models have improved their predictions have converged. Similarly, improved data collection has eliminated many of the apparent discrepancies with climate models. Scientists have never had any particular vested interest in global warming--they have been led to the concept by their data.
Re:He just took the lead in it's creation you jack (Score:3, Informative)
For your information, Gore was elected to the House in 1976, and, for further enlightenment, the House of Representatives is the other branch of, yes, Congress, where Gore said he was. Congress!=Senate. But it's fun to watch that little same factoid of misinformation about 1984 get repeated over and over, I guess you're all using the same talking points.
And, yes, ARPAnet already existed then, although I have to point out it didn't use TCP/IP until 1983, and that is the earliest traditional point that 'The Internet' started. Nothing before that can be called 'The Internet', and many people date it even later.
However, the ancestory between ARPAnet and 'The Internet' is almost entirely false. The actual links that the internet evolved from were made from NSFNET, which was made in 1986, linking five high speed computers operated by the NFS with high-speed T1 connections. It was hooked to ARPAnet via gateways, as were JANET and HEANET, but those were not 'ARPAnet'. ARPAnet was old and slow and essentially useless by the time it was shut down in 1990.
NFSNET continued to operate and everyone linked to it, until 1995 when the last link was sold off to private industry. And it became 'The Internet', along with some other networks it managed to pull along.
To put it another way: No organization still has IP numbers that were routed over ARPAnet. People do still have NFSNET-assigned ones that have been routed continually since 1987 or whenever, although obviously other organizations have been in charge over the years. This current internet is the NFSNET's child, not the ARPAnet. The ARPAnet was just a prototype. Yes, the technology was developed there, and yes Gore had nothing to do with it.
However, he had everything to do with funding NFSNET, which actually provided free fast servers and a fast enough connection made the whole thing useful, and let commercial organizations connect to it, which they couldn't do with ARPAnet.
In otherwords, he not only did what he said, he did exactly what he said. It's other people who have conflated 'The Internet' with TCP/IP or the web or ARPAnet that have it wrong. He didn't invent, or even fund, any of that. Before Al Gore, everyone had to use slow links and awkward multiple gateways that were mostly email and usenet. Then he funded 'the network of networks', and quite knowingly opened it up for everyone to use and hook to, and that thing became The Internet. He passed a law that created the network we would come to call 'The Internet'.
Ice core drill and global warming (Score:3, Informative)
Several conclusions came of this project and more will follow, but in regards to global warming he told me the following (in my own words):
"The ice core showed that we have seen several very cold and warm periods in the past, and none can be conclusive about our weather today."
and
"The measurements we have today, of temperature dates back about 150 years. That was a very cold period according to the ice core. So that the weather is getting warmer could be an obvious thing from that point."
So basically he says the data is inconclusive... but in the end he stated:
"When we look at CO2 and other green-house gasses in the ice core, we see a jump in the last few decades. I geological terms this increase is so significant that the only word we use for such a geological event is: Disaster or catastrophe! Its way off scale compared to any other event in time. What the effects are or will be I can't tell..."
Their site is here http://www.glaciology.gfy.ku.dk/ngrip/hovedside_e
Re:The worst thing about the global warming debate (Score:2, Informative)
The plot: SciFi geeks save fallen astronauts from a tyranically green/luddite government. Oh, and the glaciers? Our greenhouse gasses were holding back the next ice age, but the greens got their way. Most of Canada is already under the ice.
UK Meteorological Office says otherwise (Score:3, Informative)
The UK Meteorological Office has successfull Forecasts of Global Temperature risk [metoffice.gov.uk] using their climate model for the last six years.
Here is there take on the future : Climate, the greenhouse effect and global warming - is the climate changing? [metoffice.gov.uk]
Shocking! Exxon funded scientist criticises Gore (Score:3, Informative)
Many articles on Professor Carter's "qualifications" [timlambert.org]
I'm sure that there are more links about this professor, but even if there are some scientific dispute about a specific study sited about global warming, the bottom line isn't really in dispute: human activity is having and will have for decades to come a noticeable impact on our global environment.
for 'climate experts' read 'exxon funded shills'. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:right. credibility (Score:3, Informative)
Many misconceptions promoted as anti-GW (Score:3, Informative)
1. Many global warming deniers are:
a. funded by oil and coal companies that strongly encourage them to try to find anything so that they won't have to actually take action;
b. not peer reviewed; and
c. not supported by the more than 95 percent of climatologists who agree the GW does exist.
2. Global Warming is not what you think it is. It is actually large dramatic changes in the global temperature patterns, and even if the median temperature increases - which it is currently doing at an accelerating rate - it will tend to oscillate and result in massive changes in temperature - both Warming and Freezing - at both a local and global level.
This last point means that you can have some parts of the globe get colder while other parts - like say the Northwest section of the US - have 60 percent of their glaciers that have survived hundreds of thousands of years all melt.
You can also have, in global warming, a period where it gets much much colder for 2-5 years, and then suddenly gets a lot warmer for 5-100 years - in fact, much of our recent history shows this.
What is known is that man-made pollution, heat generation, and deforestation is now a major factor in global warming, and was not so before the 18th century. And it is becoming more and more of a major factor each and every day.
question the article (Score:3, Informative)
from http://www.highparkgroup.com/ [highparkgroup.com]
he gets paid for his opinion to be what it is!
Any resemblance here to AIDS? (Score:1, Informative)
When some some voiced the opinion that it could turn into a pandemic, many "experts" at the time pooh-poohed that view by saying was confined to a small focused population and would never spread.
The experts aren't always right.
Re:Some bold statements from this article (Score:3, Informative)
There is also disagreement on whether the world is round or flat. Should we give both sides equal time?
Despite what you want to believe, the vast majority of climate scientists blame the majority of current global warming on Man. [wikipedia.org]. Argue against the IPCC, the joint science academies statement, the US National Resource Council, the American Meteorological Society, the Federal Climate Change Science Program, the Summary Report of the World Climate Change Conference, and dozens more "summary" studies if you want to take this position.
Re:Some bold statements from this article (Score:3, Informative)
I've actually talked with the director of NCAR about their current models. They're really bloody amazing, taking into account everything down to how much erosion in region A caused by effect B is spreading minerals C into region D and causing algal blooms of E organisms, causing effects F, G, H, and I...
Our current models predict the historical climate that we have on record down to what is expected given the precision of the starting conditions from years prior and the available computing power. I can't think of a better test case than that -- can you? Now, that "computing power" issue is a big sticking point; we know how much error is introduced into the models as time goes on, and it's relative to how small of time increments we can simulate and how small of geographic areas we can segment the world into. Thus, NCAR's computing requirements are growing about twice as fast as Moore's Law. The new supercomputing facility that they're building is very impressive; the entire building pretty much is structured around how to efficiently dissipate the heat of so many processors.