New scientific research refutes many of Gore's climate claims..

[Aquariareview]

Check this out. There are so many sides to this and most of them are political. One side says "if you dont agree with global warming you are a fool" and the other side says why are there so many holes in the concept. I want to be on a side that says where is the solid proof.

 

I would love to find research that is not political but pure science. I am now reading that we should consider co-housing, that we are hoging solar energy with ethanol production, that raising beef is a planet killer and many other voices that are just trying to advance a belief system that is from one counter culture or another. I am spending a little time in Florida. Pro Global Warmers say we should have huge hurricanes. WE have had 2 very calm years. They are wrong on so many fronts that I am losing faith in their science. I want facts. Read the following and it will muddy the waters a little more.

 

The more we understand there is confusion the more we will see that the truth is still not being presenting to us by the politicians or the science groups that are funded by political groups like the UN or PETA. I have small faith in groups that want me to sell my car, quit using deoderant, and air conditioning while I eat a sprout sandwich and work for a socialist goverment. I think we should want the truth and what we have been given so far just has a lot of problems.

 

Chiago Sun Times

June 30, 2007

BY JAMES M. TAYLOR

In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.

If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.

 

A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.

 

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

 

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

 

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

 

Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.

 

Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.

 

Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."

 

Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.

 

Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.

 

Each of these cases provides an opportunity for Gore to lead by example in his call for an end to the distortion of science. Will he rise to the occasion? Only time will tell.

 

 

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute.

[mogurnda]

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute.

Interestingly, they also devote considerable time to debunking the "junk science" regarding the health effects of smoking tobacco.

 

Believe what you will. Every day in the scientific journals, the picture looks worse, not better. I suppose that may be the result of a conspiracy to suppress the truth, but I'll trust the data from my colleagues over the tendentious arguments of a group like this.

[Aquariareview]

I have never had a strong belief one way or the other. I just want to listen to empirical facts.

 

I am tired of being fed

[Jager]

well what we are doing to the climate is not easily understood because we have not been here long enough with complete records to know. what we do know is that the earth goes through cooling and warming cycles. in the middle ages it was warmer then afterwards, europe was much more fertile then we know it today. and thousands of years ago core samples removed from the ice sheets showed that the earth was 6 degrees cetigrade warmer then cooled considerably way before humans existed to change the climate.

 

right now we are measuring a .6 degree change upward over the past ten years. that is nothing.

 

oh and in the 1970s the same science was screaming about global cooling. this during the height of the dirty car era of gas guzzlers and 12mpg being a high standard of fuel economy.

 

Do i believe we effect the climate and world around us YES i do.

 

do i believe global warming happens yep, its a cyclical earth system that has been running since there was an earth.

 

 

do i believe in all the crap we hear about the world overheating and dying due to co2 from humans? not in the slightest. its half science half statistical guessing based on a VERy short window of information and records.

[modelrr]

do i believe in all the crap we hear about the world overheating and dying due to co2 from humans? not in the slightest. its half science half statistical guessing based on a VERy short window of information and records.

there are volcanoes which spew out more carbon dioxide in one eruption than mankind has created in all of history .. so yeah .. to think we can cause climate change from co2 is just a little bit ridiculous Edited July 8, 2007 by modelrr

[YBeNormal]

While there are clearly a lot of folks with per$onal reasons for taking $trong $tands on one $ide or the other on this topic, stretching or tweaking some the "facts" to make their case, I strongly believe that we are killing the planet and that the increase in CO2 caused by man is just one of many problems that need to be corrected. There is no way that we can continue to pollute the air water and land as we are doing today and not expect to see some consequences as a result. The consequences may come in the form of global cooling/warming, changing weather patterns, large-scale extinction of many species of plants and animals, plagues or some other unusual events. Each of these events creates a chain of other events and we have no way of knowing what the end result will be. IMHO, it's time for people to wake up and smell the roses (while they still exist).

[modelrr]

I agree that we should be taking care of the earth by trying to reduce pollution, etc...

 

but my point was.. trying to reduce co2 emission just won't help with global climate change. Like Jager said, it's all part of a natural cycle that has been going on since the beginning

Edited July 8, 2007 by modelrr

[YBeNormal]

CO2 has risen above historical norms and few people really debate that being a fact. How much above the 'norm' the CO2 levels are appears to be the main thing people disagree about. My point is that anything we do that changes any ballance in nature, whether it be elevating CO2 levels, relocating a species to an area where it is not native, or even gene manipulation will have some effect on the environment and usually not for the better. In other words, I do believe that we should be concerned about and trying to reduce the elevated CO2 levels.

[modelrr]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1000978/posts

[Alok]

There appears to be a scientific consensus that global warming is occurring.

 

The controversy is whether this warming is caused by human activity or is mostly due to natural forces. That debate is now mostly political, so I do not think one can find the scientific "truth", at least not without a deeper scientific background and more time than I am willing to spend :-)

 

On a non-scientific basis, I am disturbed by the heavy politicalization of this issue by the pro side. On the other hand, it appears that there are a number of proposals by that side that seem reasonable and cost effective (along with some that appear to have very significant economic and quality of life issues).

 

So, I think you'll have to make a non scientific decision...

[jnguyen4007]

I'd have to agree with Bob concerning the CO2 that we are continuously releasing into our atmosphere. Yes, it's true that there were volcanos that spit out more CO2 than humanity have produced so far. As I remembered it correctly, in the past 100 years from the beginning of the industrial age to the present, the amount of CO2 we produce have been steadily rising, while the forest around the world have been greatly reduce to make room for farming and housing. As Yager pointed out, we don't really know to what extent our actions will affect our planet because we have not been on this world long enough nor has the scientific data record been recorded long enough to show the trend and effect. I think an average American lifespan is around 77 years, and in third world country, it's even less. In term of our existence on this planet, that is a blink of an eye. But I think it's foolish and naive of us to think that what we are doing won't affect our fragile planet. It might not affect us 10 years or a 100 years down the road, but if we continue doing what we been doing, it will be a matter of time before it comes back and bite us in the rear. We have a responsibility as dominion over this fragile planet and responsibility for our future generations. I don't believe in a whole lot of what Al Gore has to say, but I also don't believe that what we are doing are not harming the environment either. It is far easier to prevent a disaster, than to wait until it happens and try to fix it then. Just my 2 cents.

[Aquariareview]

I have read that there are more trees today in the United States of America than there were when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. We manage trees by controlling forest fires and clearing underbrush. Mankind in this country (Oh there I go being an arrogant American) consumes most of the energy resources in the world, though accounting for only 5 percent of the world's population, Americans consume 26 percent of the world's energy. (American Almanac). Yet you can walk outside and breathe in every city in the country.

 

I have spent time all over the world and its not like that everywhere. According to Newsweek the following cities have the worst air in the world.

 

[rioreef]

If the Democrats were in power (White House), Al Gore would never have made his movie or the claims, because finger pointing would be at the DEMS! Would Michael Moore made his movies also? Probably not.

 

 

Political, Political, Political.

 

 

I can bet that if a DEM gets into the Oval Office, you will stop hearing about this topic, global warming will be a dead topic. If you truely believe, don't stop the fight because of who is in office.

 

It is funny that extremes or "dramatic changes" as some claim are only caused by either global warming or cooling. Nothing is just the variations that occur in nature over time in an attempt to equalize the unequal heat balance of the earth.

 

 

Hey everyone, did you know that NASA is reporting that the southern ice cap is melting!!

...must be caused by human lifestyles affecting climate.....right?

...how many agree this caused by global warming?

...we must be really good at it, because...

...it is occuring on the Planet MARS!!!!

 

and the northern pole ice cap of Mars is growing, all part of the balancing act. Wait, now we have global cooling on the top part, who is to blame now? I am so confused. Gore...comments?

 

Can wait to here about the movie that will blame global warming on that one (or will it blame cooling?)

[modelrr]

Hey everyone, did you know that NASA is reporting that the southern ice cap is melting!!

...must be caused by human lifestyles affecting climate.....right?

...how many agree this caused by global warming?

...we must be really good at it, because...

...it is occuring on the Planet MARS!!!!

we finally have proof that there are aliens on Mars

[bigJPDC]

Awesome posts Rio and Aquaria. I heard RFK Jr going nuts at one of the LE concerts about conservative radio hosts and big corporations, but I have a feeling he'd give the same speech anywhere.

[Guest Larry-T]

I see a lot of claims "debunking" global warming and a lot of personal attacks against Al Gore, Robert Kennedy, etc...

 

These are made by people who live in a world where facts are altered to suit political/economic/religous doctrine. The fact remains that the overwhelming evidence, virtually all of the articles published in LEGITIMATE scientific journals, and the long term record world-wide are conclusive. Global warming exists and human activity has contributed significantly to its increase. The rest of it is like Bill O'Reilly squeeling in his bunker.

 

It's not worth arguing with the deniers, because they just change the subject. You ask them to cite reputable journals and they point at web sites funded by energy companies or fake think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute.

 

So here's my suggest for everyone:

 

1. Identify peer-reviewed scientific journals (like Nature, or Science) and check out articles published in them. Also, make sure what the connections are of the authors.

 

2. If you see any sort of institute cited, make sure you understand where there funding is coming from.

 

There is no real profit motive in accepting global warming. There is a lot of profit for many industries (petrochemical, power, coal, automotive, etc....) in casting doubt on it. Follow the money and find the distortion.

 

I won't be reading further messages on the topic, because it's clear that there are some intellectually dishonest people who will cite any source, no matter how questionable, just to cast doubt on one of the most serious problems of the coming century. Those of us in the reality-based community can search out our own facts without relying on the junk posted in forums.

[BeltwayBandit]

These are made by people who live in a world where facts are altered to suit political/economic/religous doctrine.

 

 

That is quite possibly the most succinct and correct description of the AGW alarmists I have seen yet.

 

As far as you not wanting to read any more, I find that to be typical of the alarmists. When challenged with facts that run counter to their beliefs, they usually run away.

[rioreef]

Identify peer-reviewed scientific journals (like Nature, or Science) and check out articles published in them. Also, make sure what the connections are of the authors.

 

 

NASA Article

[Rascal]

The rest of it is like Bill O'Reilly squeeling in his bunker.

Actually, I think Bill O'Reilly is not all that hostile to taking steps to curb human influence on global warming.

 

I found this online. It is from 2002, but I listen to him from time to time if I am driving around in the afternoon and I don't think his position has changed much. I believe I have even heard him advocate recently for things like increased fuel efficiency standards. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will kindly let me know. Anyway, here's the quote:

 

"Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight.

 

Global warming is now real, at least to the Bush administration. That's the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.

 

I have never understood the resistance to the concept of global warming. It's certainly happening here in New York. When I was a kid, we used to be able to skate on frozen ponds for two months. Now if you get a week of natural ice, that's a cold winter.

 

Anyway, the truth is that no one but God really knows why the climate is changing, but many reputable scientists say there's no question that things are heating up fast, and they have the data to prove it.

 

For the first time, the Bush administration is acknowledging that fossil fuels are the reason, and that makes sense, although we can't be 100 percent positive.

 

Now, some conservatives like Rush Limbaugh recoil at all this global warming theory, but again, what's the big deal? The earth is getting warmer, and whether it is because of man or nature is pretty much beside the point.

 

On his radio program today, Mr. Limbaugh criticized the president, saying, "George W., Al Gore, anyone?" Come on, there's no downside to developing cost-efficient cleaner fuel. The USA should be trying to become energy self-sufficient and should be looking hard at hydrogen power.

 

With the tremendous technology that's developing, we should be able to get away from fossil fuel if we can.

 

Now, I'm no fanatical Green Giant, I wouldn't have signed the Kyoto Treaty because it would have hurt America economically while giving other polluting nations a pass. Yes, we use the most energy in the world, but we also drive the world's economy and protect the world from madmen like bin Laden.

 

Even though President Bush has not yet developed a visionary fuel strategy, I give him credit for being honest. He could have fogged up the global warming report and not acknowledged the problem at all. Once again, Mr. Bush seems like an honest man. He could have easily spun the report his way.

 

Now, America needs to stop arguing over the cause of global warming and begin a disciplined 10-year plan to use fewer polluting agents, more conservation, and tons more innovation.

 

Tax credit for alternative fuels should be ramped up.

 

Once again, who opposes this beside people making money from fossil fuels? Does anyone like acid rain? Does anyone want L.A. smog in their neighborhood? Let's stop the polarizing political nonsense and start working together to improve the environment and expand our wallet size."

Edited July 12, 2007 by Rascal

[bigJPDC]

As far as you not wanting to read any more, I find that to be typical of the alarmists. When challenged with facts that run counter to their beliefs, they usually run away.

 

Beautiful!!

Also, and awesome post there Rascal - reminds me of the Letterman "Well, I've never seen your show, but I know 60% of it is crap" comment.

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

jp

Edited July 12, 2007 by bigJPDC

[dschflier]

It is amazing when I here comments like Larry's. It is sad that he has to attack people who do question Al-Gores motives in trying to find out the truth.

 

Very good response Rascal. It is always very easy to blame all the worlds problems on someone like bill Oreilly, when it is clear he does not listen and just wants to be heard. I am sure many people are concerned with the health of our enviornment. Al Gore is not the final word on this subject and he has no background in this subject, so why wouldn't he be challenged.

 

It is also reasonable to question why he has become such a global warming advocate over the last couple of years. Al Gore does have something to gain in his carbon offsets company that he owns. He sells carbon offsets to anyone that can afford them.

 

Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns

Critics say justification for energy-rich lifestyle serves as way for former VP to profit

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: March 2, 2007

4:13 p.m. Eastern

 

 

 

 

[Rascal]

Also, and awesome post there Rascal - reminds me of the Letterman "Well, I've never seen your show, but I know 60% of it is crap" comment.

jp

 

Well, actually I probably disagree with about 60% of what O'Reilly says (on most issues I am one of those "lib dems" ) but that doesn't mean I think that any of it is crap. I just thought that a lot of people (conservs and libs alike) might be surprised at his opinions on this issue. I also think he makes a good bit of sense on this one.

 

My personal belief is that the underlying theory of human induced global warming is sound. If I were a betting man, I would bet that it is true. I also recognize the possibility that I could be wrong (believe it or not, it has happened before - at least that's what my wife tells me). It seems that most scientists who have spent a great deal of time studying the issue believe it is happening and will get worse if we don't do anything about it. On the other hand, opponents have not had to look too hard to find credible scientists who dissent from this prevailing view. Who is right? Only time will tell. After all, the only way to really know what will happen in the future is to wait until it happens (and then we call it "history" and STILL argue about it.)

 

The way I see it, and what I think O'Reilly is saying, is that the costs of cleaning up our act are far outweighed by the benefits. Even if everything Gore says turns out to be complete BS, does anyone think we will actually be worse off if we burn less fossil fuels and preserve more rain forest?

[rsarvis]

I'm sorry, I don't have much of a stake or position in this debate, but this post below is kind of an unwittingly self-referential farce. Self-congratulatory sanctimony appears to motivate on a par with the diabolical profit motive (gasp!)...

 

*It's not worth arguing with people who disagree with me.* *X is true, and those who disagree are like pigs squealing in their bunker.* *There's no profit motive in taking my [doubtlessly noble!] position.* *Your think tanks are fake, mine are legitimate.* *Your scientists have questionable motives, mine don't.*

 

And the most hilarious... *I'm not reading this thread anymore because the poeple who disagree with me are intellectually dishonest.* You, however, are a paragon of intellectual probity, without a doubt... Very nice....

 

Keep patting yourself on the back... I'll bet you scored a genius on the IQ test you designed for yourself...

 

I see a lot of claims "debunking" global warming and a lot of personal attacks against Al Gore, Robert Kennedy, etc...

 

These are made by people who live in a world where facts are altered to suit political/economic/religous doctrine. The fact remains that the overwhelming evidence, virtually all of the articles published in LEGITIMATE scientific journals, and the long term record world-wide are conclusive. Global warming exists and human activity has contributed significantly to its increase. The rest of it is like Bill O'Reilly squeeling in his bunker.

 

It's not worth arguing with the deniers, because they just change the subject. You ask them to cite reputable journals and they point at web sites funded by energy companies or fake think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute.

 

So here's my suggest for everyone:

 

1. Identify peer-reviewed scientific journals (like Nature, or Science) and check out articles published in them. Also, make sure what the connections are of the authors.

 

2. If you see any sort of institute cited, make sure you understand where there funding is coming from.

 

There is no real profit motive in accepting global warming. There is a lot of profit for many industries (petrochemical, power, coal, automotive, etc....) in casting doubt on it. Follow the money and find the distortion.

 

I won't be reading further messages on the topic, because it's clear that there are some intellectually dishonest people who will cite any source, no matter how questionable, just to cast doubt on one of the most serious problems of the coming century. Those of us in the reality-based community can search out our own facts without relying on the junk posted in forums.

Edited July 17, 2007 by rsarvis

[VicSkimmr]

It makes me incredibly happy to see people combating this alarmist notion of human induced global warming.

 

If only we could pull the politics and media out of it and just let the scientists debate it out, then it would be perfect. I still don't understand why Al Gore feels that in order for us to do something for our environment, we have to be the root of the problem to begin with?

 

Why not just preach conservation instead of giving the H-E-double hocky sticks, fire and brimstone message to go along with it? And please, for the love of God, stop with the carbon offsets. Planting trees to make up for your polluting ways will never be the same as just not polluting to begin with. Ugh he makes me sick.

[fragthat]

Wow is all I have to say to some of these posts on here. It really scares me when some people take such a short-sighted approach. I also don't understand how you can say you are against pollution, but not against CO2 emissions. That is like saying you are against smoking, but love tobacco. I do not support any one figurehead on either side. In fact, I find it impossible to understand why their can be no middle ground. People on the extremes are at fault, and making this division so sharp only makes beneficial changes more difficult. I am not talking about global warming in specifics, but of the environment in general. There is such a disregard to the state of the natural world it is alarming. The thing that really annoys me is the simple things people to do that would help immensely, but they are too lazy to do. For example, every day I take the metro I walk out behind someone that throws their newspaper in the garbage. Nevermind they could walk 5 feet the other way to get to the recycling bin. Or the garbage bags I see filled with cans in the dumpsters. Is it really that hard to seperate recyclables. NYC discontinued their city's recycling program because it cost too much. Sometimes you have to prioritize what money is spent on. People fail to realize that we will run out of landfill space, then what are we going to do?

 

matt

 

I still don't understand why Al Gore feels that in order for us to do something for our environment, we have to be the root of the problem to begin with?

 

 

I don't understand who is doing the pollution but us? Are the ducks and geese doing it somehow?