Gore, His Movie and What a "Climate Research" Expert has to say about global warming

[Royd 0]

Quote

Personally:

I generate all my own power from solar, and essentially "donate" the excess to the power grid. I generate about 15kwhr/day extra, which is equivalent to about a gallon of gasoline a day.

I have two hybrids, and I run them on E50, which is a 50/50 mix of gasoline and ethanol. Ethanol is a CO2-neutral fuel, since the plants needed to make it take the CO2 back out of the atmosphere.

I usually bike to work. I have a regular commuter bike and an electric one for when I'm lazy.

I've set up Skydive San Diego with a solar/natural gas power system that runs the entire DZ, along with the air conditioners. It's about 40% solar now.

We recycle our greywater. (One problem with using crop-based fuels like ethanol and biodiesel is water for irrigation; we have to use less water if those fuels get popular

I can honestly say that I am proud of you for the steps you have taken.
That gives you the right to stand on the pulpit and preach with authority.
The problem with the majority of the environmental community is that it is about monetary gain.
Gore probably hasn't lifted a finger in real life to alleviate the problem.
Those are the people that I veiw with cynicism.
Another thing is that the lifestyle the "greenies" would impose upon the world couldn't be survived by themselves for a week.
They would run, screaming, back to their water flush toilets, gas driven cars, air conditioned houses, x-boxes and fast food.

So, until I see them planting gardens by hand, preserving their own food, and riding a bicycle whenever possible, their arguments hold no water.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Gore probably hasn't lifted a finger in real life to alleviate the problem.

Disagree with him all you want, but Gore has done far, far more than most people to move environmental causes forward. Just being involved in the movie is a good example.

. . =(_8^(1)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Gore probably hasn't lifted a finger in real life to alleviate the problem.

Disagree with him all you want, but Gore has done far, far more than most people to move environmental causes forward. Just being involved in the movie is a good example.

environmental "causes", "involved in the movie"

Sounds like the same generalize non-substantive crap you see on a middle manager's resume. Except it's a bit less of crying and whining and demanding "someone else fix it" for the manager. Does Al ride a bike or install solar panels, or drive a Swatch car?.....

If you want to see the difference between window dressing and actually walking the talk, compare to BV's list. This is exactly what being addressed here.

This type of guy doesn't DO anything at the personal level, he makes a stink and points fingers. That's a big difference in philosophy - one is about doing something at the personal level. The other is about press time and being popular. The second is always looking for the government to fix things, the first just goes ahead and does it.

Take Darryl Hannah and her protest about another person's use of private property. you can tie yourself in a tree and get on film and get all warm and fuzzy and NOT FIX A DAMN THING. Or you can pony up and buy the land yourself. It's not hard.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

environmental "causes", "involved in the movie"

I certainly wasn't trying to support Gore's particular ideas or methods. I'm just saying that he's doing SOMETHING about envronmental problems, even if it simply amounts to helping raise money by affixing his name to particular causes. In the case of celebrities, that kind of effort accomplishes more than spending the day planting trees or whatever (which is a good thing too).

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 3,120]

Commentary from real scientists:


------------------------------------
Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
48 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - 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."

[Gravitymaster 0]

Majority Press Release
Contact: MARC MORANO 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY 202-224-9797

AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 27, 2006
The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.”

Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.

Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:

Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:

"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

"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." – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:

“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” - Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal

Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

“…A study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.

Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.

"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,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.

[kallend 2,150]

Might be more credible if Morano and Dempsey weren't shills for Inhofe.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Might be more credible if Morano and Dempsey weren't shills for Inhofe.

Right. Anyone you disagree with is a shill. Got it.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Might be more credible if Morano and Dempsey weren't shills for Inhofe.

Right. Anyone you disagree with is a shill. Got it.

Just the facts. They are Inhofe's mouthpieces so they have a clear agenda that is political and not scientific.

I neither agree nor disagree since I haven't had time to read all the reports and I haven't seen the movie.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Might be more credible if Morano and Dempsey weren't shills for Inhofe.

Right. Anyone you disagree with is a shill. Got it.

Just the facts. They are Inhofe's mouthpieces so they have a clear agenda that is political and not scientific.

I neither agree nor disagree since I haven't had time to read all the reports and I haven't seen the movie.

Here's some more "Inconvenient Truth"

Quote

Breaking the hockey stick
The famous graph that supposedly shows that recent temperatures are the highest in a thousand years has now been shown by careful analysis to have been based on faulty data

Marcel Crok
Special to the Financial Post


January 27, 2005


Few people dispute that the earth is getting warmer, but there are people -- so-called "climate skeptics" -- who question whether the change is historically unique and whether it is the result of human activity. These skeptics are generally outsiders, reviled by "true" climate researchers.

On the one hand, Michael Mann, the first author of the two noted hockey-stick papers (in Nature in 1998 and in Geophysical Research Letters in 1999), is the unofficial king of climate research. In 2002, Scientific American included him as one of the top 50 visionaries in science. On the other hand, the two Canadian skeptics are outsiders: Ross McKitrick is a professor of economics and Stephen McIntyre is a mineral exploration consultant -- which Mann likes to call a conflict of interest.

Climate skeptics are most prolific on the Internet, a platform for novices, the scatterbrained and the experienced alike. Not surprisingly, the climate researchers whom we consulted (predominantly Dutch) presumed the work of the two Canadians to be unconvincing. We at Natuurwetenschap & Techniek were initially skeptical about these skeptics as well. However, McIntyre and McKitrick have recently had an article accepted by Geophysical Research Letters -- the same journal that published Mann's 1999 article. This, together with the positive responses of the referees to that article, quickly brought us around.

Even Geophysical Research Letters, an eminent scientific journal, now acknowledges a serious problem with the prevailing climate reconstruction by Mann and his colleagues. This undercuts both Mann's supposed proof that human activity has been responsible for the warming of the earth's atmosphere in the 20th century and the ability to place confidence in the findings and recommendations of the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The political implication is a serious undermining of the Kyoto Protocol with its worldwide agreements on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

In their two seminal papers, Mann and his colleagues purported to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures for the last thousand years. Since 1000, temperatures gradually decreased (the shaft of the hockey stick), only to increase sharply from 1900 onwards (the blade).The implication is obvious: Human interference caused this trend to change. McIntyre and McKitrick merely attempted to replicate this oft-quoted study. In doing so, they identified mistake after mistake. They also discovered that this fundamental reconstruction had never actually been replicated by the IPCC or any other scientist. In their replication, basically derived from the same data, temperatures in the 15th century were just as high as they are today -- an outcome that takes the edge off the alarmist scenario of anthropogenic global warming. The criticism by the Canadians is mostly technical in nature: They claim that Mann and his colleagues have misused an established statistical method -- principal component analysis (PCA) -- so that their calculations simply mined data for hockey-stick shaped series and that Mann's results are statistically meaningless.

The scientists that we consulted did not immediately recognize the implications of Mann's eccentric method, suggesting the possibility he himself may not have been aware of the apparent mistake. However, in response to our inquiries, Mann denies any errors and rejects any criticism in strident terms.

Up to January, 2005, none of McIntyre and McKitrick's findings had been published by major scientific journals. Thus, in the opinion of established climate researchers, there was no reason to take them seriously. Climate researchers were quite comfortable in their consensus and repeatedly referred to this "consensus" as a basis for policy. The official expression of the consensus comes from the IPCC. This group, under the flag of the United Nations, comes out with a bulky report every five years on the state of affairs in climate research. Hundreds of climate researchers from every corner of the world contribute to it. In the third report in 2001, Mann himself was a lead author of the chapter on climate reconstructions.

Mann's hockey-stick graph was the only climate reconstruction to make it to the IPCC "Summary for Policy Makers." Its conclusion read: "It is likely that, in the Northern Hemisphere, the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year during the past thousand years." This statement has been used by governments the world over to promote the Kyoto Protocol.

Stephen McIntyre first came across the hockey stick in late 2002. The Canadian government used the graph to promote the Kyoto treaty. McIntyre explains by telephone: "When I first saw the graph, it reminded me of dot.com profit forecasts, which were also hockey sticks. It was a compelling graphic, but, in the mineral exploration industry, my own field, compelling graphics are one of the techniques used to interest investors in financing mineral exploration."

McIntyre has scrutinized promotional graphics and large data sets for years. "From my own experience, I thought that the graphic looked excessively promotional," he said. "A trick of mining promoters is to overemphasize some isolated results. I wondered if this had been the case with the hockey stick as well. I thought that it would be interesting to look at the data underlying this graphic -- as though I was looking at drill core from an exploration project. The interest was simply personal; I had no intention of writing academic articles and never expected what happened afterward."

McIntyre sent an e-mail to Michael Mann in spring 2003, asking him for the location of the data used in his study. "Mann replied that he had forgotten the location," he said. "However, he said that he would ask his colleague Scott Rutherford to locate the data. Rutherford then said that the information did not exist in any one location, but that he would assemble it for me. I thought this was bizarre. This study had been featured in the main IPCC policy document. I assumed that they would have some type of due-diligence package for the IPCC on hand, as you would have in a major business transaction. If there was no such package, perhaps there had never been any due diligence on the data, as I understood the term. In the end, this turned out to be the case. The IPCC had never bothered to verify Mann, Bradley and Hughes' study."

Despite billions of dollars spent on climate research, academic and institutional researchers had never bothered to replicate Mann's work either. In 2003, McIntyre tackled the job and, from an unusual hobby, the task has since grown to become almost a full-time occupation. On an Internet forum for climate skeptics, he met Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, just outside of Toronto. Since meeting in person in September of 2003, the two have been working on the project together. McIntyre does most of the research and McKitrick asks questions and assists in the writing of papers.

Reliable temperature measurements have only been available since around 1850. Before this period, researchers have to rely on indirect indicators, or "proxies," such as tree rings, ice cores, sedimentary layers and corals, of which tree rings are the most commonly used. Scientists studying tree rings will summarize the growth at one site into a single index or chronology, which might start, for instance, at 1470 and end at 1980.

Mann's study is the best known of the multi-proxy studies. For a realistic reproduction of the temperature in the entire Northern Hemisphere, Mann and others attempt to have a relatively even geographic distribution of proxies. This posed a difficulty. The majority of proxies were tree-ring "chronologies," especially from the U.S. Southwest. To achieve more even geographic distribution (and avoid being swamped by North American tree-ring data), Mann used principal component analysis to summarize networks of tree-ring sites, the largest of which was in North America. The 1998 article reported the use of 112 proxy series.

However, for some reason, Mann and his colleagues did not accurately document the data they had actually used. McIntyre says: "Of the series and sites listed in the original documentation, 35 were not actually used. To further confuse matters, in November, 2003, over five years after publication, Mann stated that they had actually used 159 series, instead of the 112 mentioned in his Nature article or in Rutherford's e-mail."

We decided to ask Dr. Eduardo Zorita of the GKSS Research Center in Geesthacht, Germany, who has also recently examined the calculations behind the hockey stick. His response: "This is the first time that I've heard of the number 159. In our analysis of the hockey stick, we do not use the actual data, but a series of pseudo proxies, proxies we take from our simulations. We have always assumed 112 pseudo proxies."

McIntyre decided to check the PC calculations for tree-ring networks, by doing fresh calculations with original data from the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology (WDCP). His results were very different from Mann's. He and McKitrick then sent the full data set (originally downloaded from Mann's FTP site from the address provided by Rutherford) back to Mann for confirmation that this was actually the data set used. In response, Mann stated that he did not have the time to answer this or any other request.

McIntyre and McKitrick then tried to replicate Mann's Northern Hemisphere temperature calculations from scratch. The results largely coincided with the hockey stick, except for the 15th century, when their calculated temperatures were considerably higher than Mann's and were even higher than corresponding estimates in the 20th century. McIntyre emphasized: "We did not claim to have discovered a warm medieval period; we only stated that, given the many defects in the study, it could not be used to assert that the 1990s were the warmest years of the past millennium."

Their findings were published in the interdisciplinary journal Energy and Environment in October, 2003. Mann's early responses were quite unexpected. McIntyre: "Mann stated that we had used the wrong data and somehow we failed to notice errors in the data. This was outrageous, as we had downloaded the data from his own FTP site from the location provided by his own colleague, Scott Rutherford; we had described countless errors in great detail and had re-collated over 300 series to avoid these problems. Now, according to Mann, we should have taken the data off a different address at his FTP site, but this new address had never been mentioned in any publication or even on his own Web site."

A little later, Mann and his colleagues said that they had used a step-wise procedure to deal with missing data, while McIntyre and McKitrick had not. McIntyre says: "This was when the figure of 159 series first appeared. There is no mention of this stepwise method in his Nature article. A PCA calculation fails if there is any missing data."

But McIntyre and McKitrick were most intrigued by the attribution by Mann and his colleagues of the difference in results to three "key indicators" -- most notably a North American data series -- showing that, with different handling of these three series, they also obtained high early-15th-century results. McIntyre and McKitrick decided, for the time being, to concentrate on the years 1400 to 1450, the period with the biggest discrepancies.

"Mann's own response showed that his temperature reconstruction for the first half of the 15th-century depended on [data] from the North American network. We decided to find out everything that we could about these three indicators."

Because of the discrepancy between the published methodology and the methods actually used, the ambiguity over the data sets, and the sudden claim that 159 series had to be used, McIntyre and McKitrick requested original source code from Mann in order to fully reconcile their results. Mann refused. But McIntyre did make an interesting find at Mann's FTP site -- a Fortran program of about 500 lines for the calculation of tree-ring series, virtually the only source code on the entire site. They carefully studied the script and found a highly unusual procedure that had not been mentioned in the Nature article.

McIntyre says: "The effect is that tree-ring series with a hockey-stick shape no longer have a mean of zero and end up dominating the first principal [data] component; in effect, Mann's program mines for series with a hockey-stick shape."

At our request, Dr. Mia Hubert of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium, who specializes in robust statistics, checked to see if Mann's unusual standardization influenced the climate reconstruction. She confirms: "Tree rings with a hockey-stick shape dominate the PCA with this method."

McIntyre and McKitrick decided to perform another check. Using computer simulations of so-called "red noise," they generated networks of artificial tree-ring data over the period of 1400 to 1980. Red noise is commonly used in climatology and oceanography. McIntyre says: "If we used Mann's method on red noise, we consistently obtained hockey sticks with an inflection at the start of the 20th century. We have repeated the simulation thousands of times and in 99% of the cases, the result of the PCA was a hockey stick."

Mann's climate reconstruction methodology would have yielded a hockey-stick graph from any tree-ring data set entered into the model, as long as there is sufficient red noise.

The two Canadians are no longer just one voice crying in the wilderness. On Oct. 22, 2004, in Science, Dr. Zorita and his colleague Dr. Hans von Storch, a specialist in climate statistics at the same institute, published a critique of a completely different aspect of the 1998 hockey-stick article. After studying McIntyre's finding at our request, Von Storch agrees that "simulations with red noise do lead to hockey sticks. McIntyre and McKitrick's criticism on the hockey stick from 1998 is entirely valid on this particular point."

Mann's studies and theories are heavily relied on in Gore's fantasy movie. Who's the shill now?

[rushmc 23]

But, but the tree huggers keep saying "all scientists agree"!!??

now I am so confused

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

The famous graph that supposedly shows that recent temperatures are the highest in a thousand years has now been shown by careful analysis to have been based on faulty data

Quote

Faulty data?? really?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[kallend 2,150]

You have a really strange idea of independent scientific analysis.

Why do you believe these politically motivated charlatans and discount the US National Academy of Sciences, possibly the premier scientific organization in the world?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

You have a really strange idea of independent scientific analysis.

Why do you believe these politically motivated charlatans and discount the US National Academy of Sciences, possibly the premier scientific organization in the world?

And you can say that the pro global warming crowd has no political agenda.

Realy, you are getting quite funny. When something is posted you don't agree with you consistantly attack the source.

Well then, I must assume your sources are as pure as the wind drivin snow NOT

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

You have a really strange idea of independent scientific analysis.

Why do you believe these politically motivated charlatans and discount the US National Academy of Sciences, possibly the premier scientific organization in the world?

And you can say that the pro global warming crowd has no political agenda.

Realy, you are getting quite funny. When something is posted you don't agree with you consistantly attack the source.

Well then, I must assume your sources are as pure as the wind drivin snow NOT

What is the political agenda of the US National Academy of Sciences, quite possibly (along with the Royal Society of London) the world's premiere scientific organization? Can you provide ANY source that is more authoritative than that?

www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument

The sources you and GM cite are absurd by comparison.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You have a really strange idea of independent scientific analysis.

Why do you believe these politically motivated charlatans and discount the US National Academy of Sciences, possibly the premier scientific organization in the world?

And you can say that the pro global warming crowd has no political agenda.

Realy, you are getting quite funny. When something is posted you don't agree with you consistantly attack the source.

Well then, I must assume your sources are as pure as the wind drivin snow NOT

What is the political agenda of the US National Academy of Sciences, quite possibly (along with the Royal Society of London) the world's premiere scientific organization? Can you provide ANY source that is more authoritative than that?

www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument

The sources you and GM cite are absurd by comparison.

More authoritative? No. As credible and authoritative? Yes IMO. And if you think orgs such as you list are not politically affected you are fooling your self........

I like how you did not respond to my post directly however.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You have a really strange idea of independent scientific analysis.

Why do you believe these politically motivated charlatans and discount the US National Academy of Sciences, possibly the premier scientific organization in the world?

And you can say that the pro global warming crowd has no political agenda.

Realy, you are getting quite funny. When something is posted you don't agree with you consistantly attack the source.

Well then, I must assume your sources are as pure as the wind drivin snow NOT

What is the political agenda of the US National Academy of Sciences, quite possibly (along with the Royal Society of London) the world's premiere scientific organization? Can you provide ANY source that is more authoritative than that?

www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument

The sources you and GM cite are absurd by comparison.

More authoritative? No. As credible and authoritative? Yes IMO. And if you think orgs such as you list are not politically affected you are fooling your self........

I like how you did not respond to my post directly however.

What is the basis for your "IMO" that other scientific sources are as authoritative as the USNAS. Are you a scientist? What are your credentials?

All you do is pick sources that agree with your agenda, like GM.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Right. Al Gore has no political agenda. Gotcha.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

What is the basis for your "IMO" that other scientific sources are as authoritative as the USNAS. Are you a scientist? What are your credentials?

All you do is pick sources that agree with your agenda, like GM.

In his defense (I guess), he said that the USNAS IS authoritative. But it is the CREDIBLE part that he says is questionable.

I don't get it either.

Since when do PRESS RELEASES trump USNAS?

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

McIntyre sent an e-mail to Michael Mann in spring 2003, asking him for the location of the data used in his study. "Mann replied that he had forgotten the location," he said. "However, he said that he would ask his colleague Scott Rutherford to locate the data. Rutherford then said that the information did not exist in any one location, but that he would assemble it for me. I thought this was bizarre. This study had been featured in the main IPCC policy document. I assumed that they would have some type of due-diligence package for the IPCC on hand, as you would have in a major business transaction. If there was no such package, perhaps there had never been any due diligence on the data, as I understood the term. In the end, this turned out to be the case. The IPCC had never bothered to verify Mann, Bradley and Hughes' study."

You actually find this type of sloppy research credible? Isn't the basis of scientific proof that the results are reproducable? Thanks for the insight into what you are willing to accept as credible.

[kallend 2,150]

I find the USNAS credible. More credible than Inhofe's mouthpieces or researchers on the payroll of Exxon Mobil Corp. If the USNAS panel finds credible evidence of global warming and credible evidence that human activity is a major contributor, then as far as I am concerned, that trumps anything Inhofe's people say.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I find the USNAS credible. More credible than Inhofe's mouthpieces or researchers on the payroll of Exxon Mobil Corp. If the USNAS panel finds credible evidence of global warming and credible evidence that human activity is a major contributor, then as far as I am concerned, that trumps anything Inhofe's people say.

Your response is proof you either didn't read the article(s) or didn't understand what you read.

[billvon 3,120]

>Since when do PRESS RELEASES trump USNAS?

When it agrees with one's preconceptions of course!

[penniless 0]

Gravitymaster,
Just out of curiosity, which organization(s) or individual researchers do you find more credible scientifically than the National Academy of Sciences? Even GWB seems to have taken notice of their report which, IIRC, supports the data indicating warming in the 20th Cy and the increase in greenhouse gases and the contribution of human activity.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Gravitymaster,
Just out of curiosity, which organization(s) or individual researchers do you find more credible scientifically than the National Academy of Sciences? Even GWB seems to have taken notice of their report which, IIRC, supports the data indicating warming in the 20th Cy and the increase in greenhouse gases and the contribution of human activity.

I don't dispute the Earth is warming and neither do any of the articles I have posted here.

From the Financial Post Article:

Quote

Few people dispute that the earth is getting warmer, but there are people -- so-called "climate skeptics" -- who question whether the change is historically unique and whether it is the result of human activity. These skeptics are generally outsiders, reviled by "true" climate researchers.

What I am pointing out is there is disagreement about the scientific methods used to reach the conclusions that it is being solely caused by humans and that reductions in CO are the panacea to cooling the Earth. Did you know Mars is experiencing a similar warming trend as the Earth?

At one time, it was the general consensus of the scientific community that the Earth was flat and nobody questioned their findings either.

I don't know for sure whether humans are the major cause of global warming, but unlike some, I'm trying to educate myself and I'm looking at the dissenting point of view too. I know that's unpopular to the so called "experts" we have here and I have gotten used to their unalterable beliefs and ridicule. But that won't stop me from making my decisions based on my own research instead of bowing down to the All Knowing Experts.