No and uh no.
Scientist Says Al Gore's Arguments "Pathetic"
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by carpro, Jun 14, 2006.
Page 4 of 4
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
-
Therein lies the problem.
I believe there are just as many qualified scientists that don't subsribe to the theories of global warming as there are that do.
It is hardly settled science.
The primary noisemakers seem to be environmentalists not schooled in climatology and environmentalists always seem to overreact to perceived threats. -
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Global Warming "Consensus" Claim Doesn't Hold Water
Scientists Simply Don't Agree That Global Warming is Occurring
Talking Points on the Environment #38Journalists increasingly are reporting that scientists have reached a consensus on global warming. Close examination of the evidence cited to support these claims, however, reveals that such claims simply don't hold water:
Claim: Scientists agree that failing to respond to the threat of global warming now could prove disastrous for some parts of the globe.
Fact: A survey of over 400 German, American and Canadian climate researchers conducted by the Meteorologisches Institut der Universitat Hamburg and the GKSS Forschungszentrum found that 67% of those surveyed either disagreed or were uncertain about the proposition that global warming will occur so quickly that lack of preparation could prove disastrous.
Claim: Thousands of scientists have signed letters and petitions alerting the public to the dangers of global warming.
Fact: One of the letters often cited to support this claim was issued by Ozone Action. A close examination of that letter revealed that only 10% of the letter's signatories had backgrounds in climate science. Worse, landscape architects, a gynecologist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine are among the signatories.
Claim: 2,500 United Nations-sponsored scientists have concluded that human greenhouse gas emissions are warming the temperature of the planet.
Fact: This claim is based on the fact that the United Nations Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report suggesting a "discernible human influence" on climate change. While several thousand scientists were consulted in crafting the report, not all of them agreed with its conclusions. As Dr. John W. Zillman, one of these scientists noted: "[The IPCC was] meticulous in insisting that the final decision on whether to accept particular review comments should reside with chapter Lead Authors... Some Lead Authors ignored valid critical comments or failed to... reflect dissenting views..." The report was therefore the result of a political rather than a scientific process.
Claim: The majority of scientists believe global warming is a process underway and that it is human-induced.
Fact: A 1992 Gallup survey of climatologists found that 81 percent of respondents believed that the global temperature had not risen over the past 100 years, were uncertain whether or not or why such warming had occurred, or believed any temperature increases during that period were within the natural range of variation. Further, a 1997 survey conducted by American Viewpoint found that state climatologists believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon by a margin of 44% to 17%.
Sources: National Policy Analysis Paper #177 (The National Center For Public Policy Research) and Eco-Sanity (The Heartland Institute).http://www.nationalcenter.org/TP38.html -
Thank you, Revmitchell, for providing your source.
-
Observation by an unbiased bystander...me.
Now Rev. Mitchell has proved me correct.:applause:
"Fact: A survey of over 400 German, American and Canadian climate researchers conducted by the Meteorologisches Institut der Universitat Hamburg and the GKSS Forschungszentrum found that 67% of those surveyed either disagreed or were uncertain about the proposition that global warming will occur so quickly that lack of preparation could prove disastrous." -
Interesting... the United States Geological Survey apparently still keeps data related to global warming, but now a password is required. No explanation why, or how to get a password. Looks like "national security" woiuld be compromised if we could see it.:laugh:
Well, it's an improvement from faking the data, I suppose. -
So, if it "has happened repeatedly over many thousands of years," then by all means provide us with those time periods.
Regards,
BiR -
Please show me where I ever did anything but repeat YOUR comments.
You are the one who said that you are "not involved in the science of these issues," didn't you? Those are your words, not mine, aren't they?
Furthermore, I never held myself out as someone "involved in the science of these issues," did I? As a matter of fact, I didn't even make an attempt to answer my own rhetorical question, did I?
If you are going to reply to my comments, at least afford me the courtesy of reading what I wrote and thinking about what was written.
BiR
-
Some glacial history
I have a geologist friend who is returning from 3 weeks on a glacier in the next day or two. If I think about it, I'll post a link with a better history of glaciation. -
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.
BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
EXCERPT
Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can't attribute any particular hurricane to global warming. To be sure, there is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be global warming because he can't think of anything else. While arguments like these, based on lassitude, are becoming rather common in climate assessments, such claims, given the primitive state of weather and climate science, are hardly compelling.
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. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended--at least not in terms of the actual science.
SNIP
So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics.
Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.
Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.
Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
Page 4 of 4