http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/a_convenient_lie.html

Discuss.

I know a guy who spoke to a large class at the Harvard Business School a while back. At the time this guy was Vice Chair at one of the largest and most successful corporations in the world, where btw he started as a filing clerk.

I asked him how the talk went. He said that he had never seen a group of people so convinced about being correct of wrong information. Al Gore went to Harvard.

I know a guy who spoke to a large class at the Harvard Business School a while back. At the time this guy was Vice Chair at one of the largest and most successful corporations in the world, where btw he started as a filing clerk.

I asked him how the talk went. He said that he had never seen a group of people so convinced about being correct of wrong information. Al Gore went to Harvard.

What is it with Harvard Grads and being wrong consistently...oh yea and being pig headed as well...

From a Biography...

President Bush received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975

Mixed camps are fighting here. Global warming is stupid because it can be stopped. Why would you dismiss something simply because of one article written on such a bad source of **** articles.
Read up.


Global Warming does does exist. This isn't about how stupid Harvard grads (they are just rich).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/a_convenient_lie.html

Discuss.

Uh huh, the only persons on this earth who believe global warming doesn't exist are those on the oil co. payroll, or perhaps those who think Lance posts on RBR

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/a_convenient_lie.html

Discuss.


Let's discuss John Stossel. The guy is a deceiver.

There really is little to discuss about the reality of anthropogenic warming, although I continue to find the motives of deniers of interest. Disregarding industry flacks, I figure it's mostly a Republican talking point and general curmudgeonness. In Stossel's case, it's just his money-making schtick. He takes contrarian positions just to sell his "celebrity."



"We were hoodwinked"

One controversy that caught mainstream media's attention concerned Stossel's interview of a group of grade-school students for his ABC News special "What's Wrong With Tampering With Nature?" (6/29/01). The children's parents had signed releases for them to appear on the show, but after witnessing Stossel's methods, several withdrew their consent and protested to ABC.

The special caricatured environmentalists as "preachers of doom and gloom" whose fanaticism would have us all "running around naked, hungry for food, maybe killing a rabbit with a rock, then dying young." A key theme was Stossel's claim that U.S. schools have become an "environmental boot camp" to indoctrinate children with green propaganda, when in fact the environment is doing just fine.

To illustrate his point, Stossel arranged an interview with a group of California kids, asking what parents described as leading questions to try to show that the children had been taught environmentalist lies. Several parents said they hadn't known about this slant when they granted permission for the interviews. They complained that ABC had "misrepresented" the segment by telling them simply that it was an Earth Day special, and by concealing Stossel's involvement (L.A. Times, 6/26/01).

One father, Brad Neal, told the Washington Post (6/26/01) that Stossel's questioning was "entirely misleading," and that "he'd repeat the questions until he got the answer he wanted…. We knew we were hoodwinked." Parents said Stossel even tried to lead the children in chant suggesting that "all scientists agree there is a greenhouse effect" (L.A. Times, 6/26/01).

As a result of the negative publicity, ABC pulled the interviews before the show aired, though the network stood by Stossel's work. Stossel's own response was instructive. He found new kids to interview, apparently with the same techniques: On the special, they responded in well-coordinated unison to Stossel's questions. He also went on the attack against the parents, saying that they had been "brainwashed" by environmental activists, whom he characterized as "the totalitarian left" (O'Reilly Factor, 6/27/01).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/a_convenient_lie.html

Discuss.



Wow!!! You're so right.

Let's discuss John Stossel. The guy is a deceiver.

There really is little to discuss about the reality of anthropogenic warming, although I continue to find the motives of deniers of interest. Disregarding industry flacks, I figure it's mostly a Republican talking point and general curmudgeonness. In Stossel's case, it's just his money-making schtick. He takes contrarian positions just to sell his "celebrity."



"We were hoodwinked"

One controversy that caught mainstream media's attention concerned Stossel's interview of a group of grade-school students for his ABC News special "What's Wrong With Tampering With Nature?" (6/29/01). The children's parents had signed releases for them to appear on the show, but after witnessing Stossel's methods, several withdrew their consent and protested to ABC.

The special caricatured environmentalists as "preachers of doom and gloom" whose fanaticism would have us all "running around naked, hungry for food, maybe killing a rabbit with a rock, then dying young." A key theme was Stossel's claim that U.S. schools have become an "environmental boot camp" to indoctrinate children with green propaganda, when in fact the environment is doing just fine.

To illustrate his point, Stossel arranged an interview with a group of California kids, asking what parents described as leading questions to try to show that the children had been taught environmentalist lies. Several parents said they hadn't known about this slant when they granted permission for the interviews. They complained that ABC had "misrepresented" the segment by telling them simply that it was an Earth Day special, and by concealing Stossel's involvement (L.A. Times, 6/26/01).

One father, Brad Neal, told the Washington Post (6/26/01) that Stossel's questioning was "entirely misleading," and that "he'd repeat the questions until he got the answer he wanted…. We knew we were hoodwinked." Parents said Stossel even tried to lead the children in chant suggesting that "all scientists agree there is a greenhouse effect" (L.A. Times, 6/26/01).

As a result of the negative publicity, ABC pulled the interviews before the show aired, though the network stood by Stossel's work. Stossel's own response was instructive. He found new kids to interview, apparently with the same techniques: On the special, they responded in well-coordinated unison to Stossel's questions. He also went on the attack against the parents, saying that they had been "brainwashed" by environmental activists, whom he characterized as "the totalitarian left" (O'Reilly Factor, 6/27/01).

There is nothing in that article that proves or disproves the integrity of John Stossel. It is another opinion poll. I don't believe in the global warming ideas, I think the weather is beyond our control, and I do believe our children are being taught faulty views of it in our schools. I still have a garage full of winter gear and stacks of food in preparation for the big freeze that was predicted in the 70's, which was by the way, the fault of man as well. "I did predict it would freeze, before I voted, uhhh, predicted warming."

There is nothing in that article that proves or disproves the integrity of John Stossel. It is another opinion poll. I don't believe in the global warming ideas, I think the weather is beyond our control, and I do believe our children are being taught faulty views of it in our schools. I still have a garage full of winter gear and stacks of food in preparation for the big freeze that was predicted in the 70's, which was by the way, the fault of man as well. "I did predict it would freeze, before I voted, uhhh, predicted warming."


"Proof" of Stossel's deceptions as in a court of law? No. Pretty serious indications of it, though.

Stossel, no Stossel. Immaterial to the topic at hand. In fact, I'd say Stossel is immaterial to pretty much anything--just an attention grabbing celeb with a schtick.

Is that "quote" at the end supposed to be a reminder of John Kerry's vote on Iraq funding?

If so, let me also remind everyone that George Bush "was against Iraq funding before he was for it."

The only difference between the two is that Kerry wanted to fund it; Bush wanted it added to the deficit. It was added to the deficit.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/a_convenient_lie.html

Discuss.

To begin with, it's John Stossel, who hasn't made sense in years. Beyond that, the factual mistakes start with the first sentence: "When he was in college, atmospheric-science professor John Christy was told, 'it was a certainty that by the year 2000, the world would be starving and out of energy.' " Stossel dismisses that based on what he sees from his penthouse ("Hey, nobody's starving at ABC--we're all driving Escalades"). If if he'd go outside and look around, he'd see that much of the world IS starving (even 20 percent of Americans are in poverty these days) and the supply of energy is dwindling every day. The prediction may have been off by a decade, but it's inevitable. Only a moron could fail to recognize that the supply of fossil fuel, however large, is finite.
This is nothing but another Stosseloid liberal-bashing. He, George Bush and maybe Tony Snow are the last three people in America outside the oil companies who deny the fact of global warming.

Stossel's reporting hasn't been the same since he got attacked by that wrestler in 1984. Accusing a wrestler to his face of faking it = not too smart.

As for global warming, I think the world operates in cycles that go beyond the study of climatologists. Perhaps global warming should be in the realm of geologists or paleontologists.

As an aside, I just got back from a visit to Glacier National Part in MT. The rangers were saying that if the earth keeps heating up at its current rate, the glaciers there will be gone in 30 years. Take your kids to see those glaciers before they are gone.

There is nothing in that article that proves or disproves the integrity of John Stossel. It is another opinion poll. I don't believe in the global warming ideas, I think the weather is beyond our control, and I do believe our children are being taught faulty views of it in our schools. I still have a garage full of winter gear and stacks of food in preparation for the big freeze that was predicted in the 70's, which was by the way, the fault of man as well. "I did predict it would freeze, before I voted, uhhh, predicted warming."

Now, just for a moment I am going to ask you to take off that glued on "hair club for men" partisan hat for a moment for some quick analysis of your post.

Now, I have no idea about global warming...I am a scientific idiot devoid of mathematical or scientific abilities. You could be right or wrong...and there is no way for me to counter it either way. So now at the risk of sounding "attack the messengerish" let us take a look at Stossel.

First, as any would be historian will tell you...you cannot forget about those things that do not support your hypothesis. If you do...you are a sham, a hack, a charleton what have you...and you would not last long in the community of historians...who do rely on facts that they should be able to prove.

So, moving to Stossel you assert that he has done nothing that "disproves his integrity"...well first let us look at one of his named sources a man named John Christy...what is his background and what might it tell us. He works for the PR firm that works for ExxonMobile called the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He also worked for the cooler heads commision whose job it was to deny global warming. His methodology has been questioned by many of his peers for showing the exact opposite (cooling) rather than others (warming).

Now, we have one person that sits shall we say out of the mainstream of peer reviewed scientific community who says something...compounded with the disappearance of much of the scientific community that would offer refutable evidance against his expert and what do you have left?

I would say as an historian he would be a poor one. To not at least give both sides when there is so much to the other arguement but rather be petulant and dismissive about "fundamentalist doomsdayers" is a work of poor journalistic ethics. Either he did not look for other sources (although they are readily available), did not think of questioning his own sources dissimiliar credentials, or he wanted to just put forth a simplistic, slanted, polemicists diatribe; any of those put into question his integrity as a journalist.

Just as so many questioned Rather's integrity when documents were found to be forged.

Jumping over the fence and back on this time and time again on a purely partisan basis may give one strong arm, chest and back muscles...but it does not do anything other than show the move for what it so baldly is...

Yeah, it was really a reminder that things, science, and opinions change and are more affected by the political climate than the Earth's.

No one denies the 'fact' of global warming. What is being disputed are the reasons for it. The Earth's temps have been tracked and charted. The evidence points to the 'fact' that it has been in a warming trend for hundreds of years - well before man put rubber to the road.

I too remember how we would be entering a mini ice age. I would place money on that event happening well before anything else save an asteroid pummelling the planet or the giant cauldera under Yellowstone blowing and plunging us all into darkness.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy) might be a bit more unbiased look at Mr. Christy and his work. The again, maybe he wrote if for Wiki :blush2:

I mean we have a large group of independent and peer reviewed Scientists vs. a Corporate Shill.
I mean why would Exxon Mobil want to lie to us?

No one denies the 'fact' of global warming. What is being disputed are the reasons for it.

Ummm...no.

Steam please review your RTP right around the time Kyoto was finally put into place without us.

Or is this one of those Kerry-esque flip-flops?

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy) might be a bit more unbiased look at Mr. Christy and his work. The again, maybe he wrote if for Wiki :blush2:

Thanks...it says the exact same thing that I asserted.
Only I was going on memory and this wiki link provides the more specifics (that I don't understand, but sound important.)

The evidence points to the 'fact' that it has been in a warming trend for hundreds of years - well before man put rubber to the road.




You want to focus on proven facts?

The fact that C02 is a byproduct of industrial activity. The fact that such emissions have increased hugely during the Industrial Age. The fact that C02 causes a warming effect (Arhhenius, circa 1700).

I really do not understand why people thrash about on this issue.

you know "We exhale Co2 and plants inhale it, it's natural and those Libbies wanna call it pollution" that are put out by the energy industry. I just wonder if any of you ostriches have kids or grandkids and if so why do you hate the future of America?

you know "We exhale Co2 and plants inhale it, it's natural and those Libbies wanna call it pollution" that are put out by the energy industry. I just wonder if any of you ostriches have kids or grandkids and if so why do you hate the future of America?


It's called "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

It's called regressive thinking.

Are there more negative thinkers than liberals? "Can't win this or any war, for that matter. We're running out of everything and the end is always near too." Man, how can you wake each morning to face another day? :frown2:

Now, just for a moment I am going to ask you to take off that glued on "hair club for men" partisan hat for a moment for some quick analysis of your post.

Now, I have no idea about global warming...I am a scientific idiot devoid of mathematical or scientific abilities. You could be right or wrong...and there is no way for me to counter it either way. So now at the risk of sounding "attack the messengerish" let us take a look at Stossel.

First, as any would be historian will tell you...you cannot forget about those things that do not support your hypothesis. If you do...you are a sham, a hack, a charleton what have you...and you would not last long in the community of historians...who do rely on facts that they should be able to prove.

So, moving to Stossel you assert that he has done nothing that "disproves his integrity"...well first let us look at one of his named sources a man named John Christy...what is his background and what might it tell us. He works for the PR firm that works for ExxonMobile called the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He also worked for the cooler heads commision whose job it was to deny global warming. His methodology has been questioned by many of his peers for showing the exact opposite (cooling) rather than others (warming).

Now, we have one person that sits shall we say out of the mainstream of peer reviewed scientific community who says something...compounded with the disappearance of much of the scientific community that would offer refutable evidance against his expert and what do you have left?

I would say as an historian he would be a poor one. To not at least give both sides when there is so much to the other arguement but rather be petulant and dismissive about "fundamentalist doomsdayers" is a work of poor journalistic ethics. Either he did not look for other sources (although they are readily available), did not think of questioning his own sources dissimiliar credentials, or he wanted to just put forth a simplistic, slanted, polemicists diatribe; any of those put into question his integrity as a journalist.

Just as so many questioned Rather's integrity when documents were found to be forged.

Jumping over the fence and back on this time and time again on a purely partisan basis may give one strong arm, chest and back muscles...but it does not do anything other than show the move for what it so baldly is...

You misunderstand, I was not defending Stossel's honor, I questioned the material used to call him a liar. There was nothing in it but opinion and supposition. Given the two stated positions, I found the things attributed to Stossel to be more in line with what I believe to be true. Now if he is a liar, his arguments should be disproved point by point with something substantial to support it. Otherwise, it is simply his opinion and our opinions being argued here.

I have little faith in the science that blames this Earth cycle on man. Those same scientific scholars and institutes were "Miserable failures," to borrow a phrase from Al Gore, in the 70's when they predicted we would all be living in igloos and eating walrus by now. CO2 was, I believe, the common cause of the deepfreeze and the oven theories. My personal view is that it is a natural cycle, not influenced by us. Actually, I have no expertise in this field either, but please don't let that get out. I have a tough enough time around here without my scientific credntials being discredited.

Man, how can you wake each morning to face another day? :frown2:


By thinking the world can be a better place and trying to make it so (Llberals).

So much better than waking up thinking the world sucks and there is not a thing to be done (Conservatives).

the world sucks, nothing can be done so I might as well cash in

or the world sucks but Jesus will save it

or everything is hunky dory, don't worry, be happy

or I'm scared of 2 bit dictators who pose no real threat but melting ice caps, rising global temps, 700 plus US counties asking for drought aid and a year of record intensity hurricanes don't make me flinch a bit.

No one denies the 'fact' of global warming. What is being disputed are the reasons for it.

Didn't the Bush administration finally change it's position on this issue? I thought I read that even they now admit that global warming is indeed being driven primarily by human related activities. Of course they did so without fanfare since it's inconvenient when the truth falls on the "liberal" side of a debate.

You misunderstand, I was not defending Stossel's honor, I questioned the material used to call him a liar. There was nothing in it but opinion and supposition. Given the two stated positions, I found the things attributed to Stossel to be more in line with what I believe to be true. Now if he is a liar, his arguments should be disproved point by point with something substantial to support it. Otherwise, it is simply his opinion and our opinions being argued here.

I have little faith in the science that blames this Earth cycle on man. Those same scientific scholars and institutes were "Miserable failures," to borrow a phrase from Al Gore, in the 70's when they predicted we would all be living in igloos and eating walrus by now. CO2 was, I believe, the common cause of the deepfreeze and the oven theories. My personal view is that it is a natural cycle, not influenced by us. Actually, I have no expertise in this field either, but please don't let that get out. I have a tough enough time around here without my scientific credntials being discredited.

Re: Stossel

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0221-21.htm

As for global warming, I think the world operates in cycles that go beyond the study of climatologists. Perhaps global warming should be in the realm of geologists or paleontologists.



As someone whose undergraduate degree is in geology (with research done in paleontology), I can assure you there is, if possible, even less debate about anthropogenic climate change.

In the scientific community there is no debate. People who claim that there is no global warming or no man made effect are the to scientists what holocaust deniers are to historians.

no man made effect are the to scientists ...

LOL. You talk funny.

People who claim that there is no global warming or that it is not man a made(or aided) effect are the to scientists what holocaust deniers are to historians.

but the thought is good

Now regarding 'You Talk Funny'

first of all they are/were writing, so correct text would read "You write funny"

if he had said this it would be "You Speak Funny"

You should have a conversation with my 3 year old. The two of you are about grammatical equals

in other words when ya live in a glass house......

Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.

BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN,

Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms--unless we change the way we live now.

Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore's gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush's obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."

That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.

The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know."

So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template--namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.

They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.

The other elements of the global-warming scare scenario are predicated on similar oversights. Malaria, claimed as a byproduct of warming, was once common in Michigan and Siberia and remains common in Siberia--mosquitoes don't require tropical warmth. Hurricanes, too, vary on multidecadal time scales; sea-surface temperature is likely to be an important factor. This temperature, itself, varies on multidecadal time scales. However, questions concerning the origin of the relevant sea-surface temperatures and the nature of trends in hurricane intensity are being hotly argued within the profession.
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.

A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.

There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.

Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact. Thus, although the conflicted state of the affair was accurately presented in the 1996 text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the infamous "summary for policy makers" reported ambiguously that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." This sufficed as the smoking gun for Kyoto.

The next IPCC report again described the problems surrounding what has become known as the attribution issue: that is, to explain what mechanisms are responsible for observed changes in climate. Some deployed the lassitude argument--e.g., we can't think of an alternative--to support human attribution. But the "summary for policy makers" claimed in a manner largely unrelated to the actual text of the report that "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

In a similar vein, the National Academy of Sciences issued a brief (15-page) report responding to questions from the White House. It again enumerated the difficulties with attribution, but again the report was preceded by a front end that ambiguously claimed that "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability." This was sufficient for CNN's Michelle Mitchell to presciently declare that the report represented a "unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse and is due to man. There is no wiggle room." Well, no.

More recently, 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.

Even more recently, the Climate Change Science Program, the Bush administration's coordinating agency for global-warming research, declared it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." This, for Mr. Easterbrook, meant: "Case closed." What exactly was this evidence? The models imply that greenhouse warming should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979. The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should look like. That, to me, means the case is still very much open.

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.

===========================

Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences

Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability. His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics to higher latitudes, and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in producing the reversal of global temperature gradients at the mesopause. He pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics interact with each other. He is currently studying the ways in which unstable eddies determine the pole to equator temperature difference, and the nonlinear equilibration of baroclinic instability and the contribution of such instabilities to global heat transport. He has also been developing a new approach to air-sea interaction in the tropics, and is actively involved in parameterizing the role of cumulus convection in heating and drying the atmosphere. He has developed models for the Earth's climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cycle in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations in climate. In cooperation with colleagues and students, he is developing a sophisticated, but computationally simple, climate model to test whether the proper treatment of cumulus convection will significantly reduce climate sensitivity to the increase of greenhouse gases. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and a Fellow of the AAAS1. He is a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)

Whether you believe the global warming data or not, what's wrong with having a clean environment? Breathing clean air when you ride your bike. Drinking clean water, etc... Having the same wonderful wilderness around 100 years from now so your grandkids will be able to enjoy it.

If you don't like Al Gore well that's your business but the real issue here is the environment vs. big business. Don't be an environment hater. :)

People who claim that there is no global warming or that it is not man a made(or aided) effect are the to scientists what holocaust deniers are to historians.

Global Warming is a fact. There is no denying that we're now almost at the peak of an ~150,000yr cycle (with 22,000yr mini-cycles) that has been repeated multiple times in "recent" history. What is specious is the mindset that we can do anything to prevent it from happening. At best, all we can do is nothing. At worst, all we can do is speed the process up by a few hundred years. It *will* happen though. And then it'll get colder again. Lather, rinse, repeat. Somehow, I think the human race will survive and, if not, then we're not worthy.

Whether you believe the global warming data or not, what's wrong with having a clean environment? Breathing clean air when you ride your bike. Drinking clean water, etc... Having the same wonderful wilderness around 100 years from now so your grandkids will be able to enjoy it.

THIS is the reason I want "green" technologies. Pollution is a much greater threat to us than global warming, IMO.

People who claim that there is no global warming or that it is not man a made(or aided) effect are the to scientists what holocaust deniers are to historians.

but the thought is good

Now regarding 'You Talk Funny'

first of all they are/were writing, so correct text would read "You write funny"

if he had said this it would be "You Speak Funny"

You should have a conversation with my 3 year old. The two of you are about grammatical equals

in other words when ya live in a glass house......

You be dumb.

You want to focus on proven facts?

The fact that C02 is a byproduct of industrial activity. The fact that such emissions have increased hugely during the Industrial Age. The fact that C02 causes a warming effect (Arhhenius, circa 1700).

I really do not understand why people thrash about on this issue.

Nothing to thrash about, however you leave out a key piece. We didn't create all that CO2 for shts and grins, all that CO2 helped push life expectancies from 40 something to 70 something while raising the standard of living an incalculable percentage. I hate pollution, but it is a price to be paid for our way of life, since nearly every Prius I see is going 80+mph in the HOV lane, I don't even see the 'socially concious' members of our People Republic of California really willing to pay a price at this point....and I'm sure they all love Al's movie.

Nothing to thrash about, however you leave out a key piece. We didn't create all that CO2 for shts and grins, all that CO2 helped push life expectancies from 40 something to 70 something while raising the standard of living an incalculable percentage. I hate pollution, but it is a price to be paid for our way of life, since nearly every Prius I see is going 80+mph in the HOV lane, I don't even see the 'socially concious' members of our People Republic of California really willing to pay a price at this point....and I'm sure they all love Al's movie.


Also, the fact that CO2 is also a byproduct of breathing. Should we start limiting our breathing, or the breathing of other mamals?

Maybe we should increase abortions to control the population so we don't run out of air.

Indeed, please forgive me for posting at work (i.e. in a hurry).

I'm trying to understand why some people think that combustion of fossile fuels does not increase the risk of catastrophic global warming. You must either not believe one of the factual statements below, or you msut be illogical. Do you think that one or more of the following statements is wrong?

1. Atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by 30% since 1950. The cause of the increase is due to combustion of fossil fuels, as proven by the change in the ratio of C13:C12 in the atmosphere.

2. Increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect because CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and thereby reduces heat loss radiating from the earth. This results in some amount of global warming.

3. A small amount of global warming has a significant risk of causing additional warming because of feedback effects such as reduced uptake of CO2 by oceans because of lower solubilty at warmer temperatures and such as reduced reflectance because of smaller areas covered with ice.

Why do you use the loaded term 'catastrophic'?

Why do you use the loaded term 'catastrophic'?

Often cited are:

Rising sea levels and consequent dislocation--more than half the world's population lives near coasts.

Droughts as weather patterns change; consequent famines.

Imagine the famine that would strike the world if we just quit producing CO2? I'll take your global warming famine any day of the week. And why do you casually ignore the positive impacts of a warming climate?

Imagine the famine that would strike the world if we just quit producing CO2? I'll take your global warming famine any day of the week. And why do you casually ignore the positive impacts of a warming climate?

You're right...we'd never have to worry about rebuilding N.O.

Eureka!!!:idea::idea:

Imagine the famine that would strike the world if we just quit producing CO2? I'll take your global warming famine any day of the week. And why do you casually ignore the positive impacts of a warming climate?


Well, since we are NOT going to stop production of CO2 (no one suggests it), there will be no consequent famine--no need to imagine it or plan for it.

No one, including you, I presume, would instead take famines that will kill hundreds of thousands. But it is not a matter of choosing between two famines.

There is no disagreement (anywhere, as far as I know) that negative consequences of warming greatly exceed any possible benefit. The scale of the two outcomes is not comparable.

You will come to look back on these years of denial as an utter waste of your mentality.



Here is a related story of famine and pollution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahel_drought

But of course you will merely say that such a thing could not or did not happen. One can lead a horse to water, but...

nearly every Prius I see is going 80+mph in the HOV lane, I don't even see the 'socially concious' members of our People Republic of California really willing to pay a price at this point....and I'm sure they all love Al's movie.
Yabbut that engine runs on farts not petroleum. :p :wink:

Edit: Okay a few drops of petroleum. :)

You be dumb.
Brilliant post...:rolleyes:

If you don't mind, this is a discussion forum not an insult forum.

There is no disagreement (anywhere, as far as I know) that negative consequences of warming greatly exceed any possible benefit. The scale of the two outcomes is not comparable.

Because the people who are driving the global warming hysteria would defeat their purpose by talking about any benifit. Show me any discussion where benifits are even hinted at to offer a comparison.

You will come to look back on these years of denial as an utter waste of your mentality.

Nice attack.


Here is a related story of famine and pollution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahel_drought

But of course you will merely say that such a thing could not or did not happen. One can lead a horse to water, but...

"However, in 2000s, after the phenomenon of global dimming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming) was discovered, new models speculatively suggested that the drought was likely caused by air pollution generated in Europe and North America. The pollution changed the properties of clouds over the Atlantic ocean, disturbing the monsoons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsoon) and shifting the tropical rains southwards."

Sounds plausible, but you will note that the theory of this famine has now changed 3 times in two decades and there still are giant qualifiers above. Oh, and there, of course, is no discussion of the possible benifits to the areas to the south that tropical rains shifted to. You don't think that a warming Greenland might have benifits to Greenland? Know why it's called Greenland???

Show me a balanced analysis and I'm all ears.

Know why it's called Greenland???


Because the Vikings wanted to convince people to colonize a barren country they'd never seen?

Because the Vikings wanted to convince people to colonize a barren country they'd never seen?

You failed to read more of the Wiki article..."The fjords of the southern part of the island were lush and had a warmer climate at that time, possibly due to what was called the Medieval Warm Period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period). "

:D :D

You failed to read more of the Wiki article..."The fjords of the southern part of the island were lush and had a warmer climate at that time, possibly due to what was called the Medieval Warm Period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period). "

:D :D

This is the problem with Wiki...if folks had read Jared Diamonds: Collapse...both of you would be blaming the collapse on the Norse civilizations that thrived there at one time on population environmental damage of the area of fertility, including but not limited to deforestation, over farming, grazing and not understanding or seeing the upcoming problems with their tampering with their own environment.

/Just reads it...don't writes it.
//Believe it or not...

This is the problem with Wiki...if folks had read Jared Diamonds: Collapse...both of you would be blaming the collapse on the Norse civilizations that thrived there at one time on population environmental damage of the area of fertility, including but not limited to deforestation, over farming, grazing and not understanding or seeing the upcoming problems with their tampering with their own environment.

/Just reads it...don't writes it.
//Believe it or not...

I believeseverything i reads on the eintarw3bs, after all, Lance posts here and Paul Sherwin uses RBR as reference.

//////I didn't even read the wiki article...:blush2:

I believeseverything i reads on the eintarw3bs, after all, Lance posts here and Paul Sherwin uses RBR as reference.

//////I didn't even read the wiki article...:blush2:

you be dumb:D

"Oh, of course I'll keep it to myself...

Until the water reaches my lower lip, and then I'm going to mention it to somebody! " Prof. Fate

you be dumb:D
"Docta-D0cCTttAA Myyyyy Br@iNNN HuuurRRRrttTT$$sss"

Why do you use the loaded term 'catastrophic'?

Maybe the global warming being caused by human activity is benign or even beneficial. Maybe it will be catastrophic. It's the risk of catastrophic consequences that we care about.

I'm very optimistic that we can develop clean energy technology and improved efficiencies that would mitigate the risk of catastrophic global warming while also improving the standard of living, conserving limited resources, and limiting political and economic powers of countires and cultures that are opposed to us.

I can't comprehend the pessimism of people who think that there will be mass starvation and declining standards of living if we reduce fossil fuel consumption.

Are there more negative thinkers than liberals? "Can't win this or any war, for that matter. We're running out of everything and the end is always near too." Man, how can you wake each morning to face another day? :frown2:

The biggest pessimist on earth are those who don't think we can improve efficiencies and develop clean energy sources to raise our standard of living, mitigate global warming risks, and develop our economy. What has happened to the country that developed the A bomb and put man on the moon? We have lost vision and optimism. The new conservatives have no faith in the ability of society to solve big problems and realize new opportunities. You are purely pessimistic about the behaviour and abilities of mankind while maintaining a foolish optimism about the forces of nature.

The biggest pessimist on earth are those who don't think we can improve efficiencies and develop clean energy sources to raise our standard of living, mitigate global warming risks, and develop our economy. What has happened to the country that developed the A bomb and put man on the moon? We have lost vision and optimism. The new conservatives have no faith in the ability of society to solve big problems and realize new opportunities. You are purely pessimistic about the behaviour and abilities of mankind while maintaining a foolish optimism about the forces of nature.

Conservatives have no faith in the ability of our society??? Wow, that's a twist!!! There is no doubt that we can solve any problem put before us, but there is also no doubt that initially there will be large economic consequences and the faster your timeline the larger the consequences. The greatest catalyst to energy independence and development of clean energy is right here, right now, it's called $75 a barrel oil and listen to the squalling from BOTH sides. Conservatives are pessimists??? Living as a conservative moderate in California I don't see the fruits of progressives enhancing life in the Golden State. Tremendous urban sprawl, poor mass transit in urban areas, dispite a geographical layout that would lend easily to high speed inter-urban transit, not one rail tie has been laid in the 50 years of bullet trains, that's the Progressive Legacy in California. We have the political landscape you all dream and drool for and we've got zip, zilch, nada out of it. I have to stop, it's too funny and sad simultaneausly!!!

Conservatives have no faith in the ability of our society??? Wow, that's a twist!!! There is no doubt that we can solve any problem put before us, but there is also no doubt that initially there will be large economic consequences and the faster your timeline the larger the consequences. The greatest catalyst to energy independence and development of clean energy is right here, right now, it's called $75 a barrel oil and listen to the squalling from BOTH sides. Conservatives are pessimists??? Living as a conservative moderate in California I don't see the fruits of progressives enhancing life in the Golden State. Tremendous urban sprawl, poor mass transit in urban areas, dispite a geographical layout that would lend easily to high speed inter-urban transit, not one rail tie has been laid in the 50 years of bullet trains, that's the Progressive Legacy in California. We have the political landscape you all dream and drool for and we've got zip, zilch, nada out of it. I have to stop, it's too funny and sad simultaneausly!!!

I won't defend Democrats. My point is that some of the greatest accomplishments of the United States were done by the Government. Winning World War II, developing the A-bomb, industrializing space, building the interstate highway system. Even the war on hunger was successful. All of these challenges were to big to be solved by private inititiatives. Yet conservatives have no faith in our Society's ability to utilize Government programs to solve problems. This is pessimism. An effort akin to the Manhattan Project and the Apollo program is needed to find energy alternatives. The scope is much too large for private industry driven by $75 a barrel oil. The benefits and spinoffs from such a program would be unimaginable. What we really need is for China to start an agressive program for producing clean cheap energy. That might spur us to action in the way that Sputnik did.

By the way, how many Conservative Republicans in Califorinia pushed for development of Mass Transit and were stymied by the liberals?

Conservatives have no faith in the ability of our society??? Wow, that's a twist!!! There is no doubt that we can solve any problem put before us, but there is also no doubt that initially there will be large economic consequences and the faster your timeline the larger the consequences. The greatest catalyst to energy independence and development of clean energy is right here, right now, it's called $75 a barrel oil and listen to the squalling from BOTH sides. Conservatives are pessimists??? Living as a conservative moderate in California I don't see the fruits of progressives enhancing life in the Golden State. Tremendous urban sprawl, poor mass transit in urban areas, dispite a geographical layout that would lend easily to high speed inter-urban transit, not one rail tie has been laid in the 50 years of bullet trains, that's the Progressive Legacy in California. We have the political landscape you all dream and drool for and we've got zip, zilch, nada out of it. I have to stop, it's too funny and sad simultaneausly!!!


In fact it's a clue as to who's really been pulling the strings in California all along.

Also, the fact that CO2 is also a byproduct of breathing. Should we start limiting our breathing, or the breathing of other mamals?

Maybe we should increase abortions to control the population so we don't run out of air.


They should have started with the stupid people in.... what year were you born in?

Brilliant post...:rolleyes:

If you don't mind, this is a discussion forum not an insult forum.


It seems to me that it's more of an ironic post than an insulting post.

Indeed, please forgive me for posting at work (i.e. in a hurry).


Don't worry about it... consider who's making the judgement.

Why do you use the loaded term 'catastrophic'?


No doubt you'll be waiting around to find out.

In fact it's a clue as to who's really been pulling the strings in California all along.

Now that is laughable...:D

Excerpts from an article by Gregg Easterbrook titled "Finally Feeling the Heat" published in the New York Times on May 24, 2006

“…has anything happened in recent years that should cause a reasonable person to switch sides in the global-warming debate?

Yes: the science has changed from ambiguous to near-unanimous. As an environmental commentator, I have a long record of opposing alarmism. But based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert.

That research is now in, and it shows a strong scientific consensus that an artificially warming world is a real phenomenon posing real danger:

The American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society in 2003 both declared that signs of global warming had become compelling.

In 2004 the American Association for the Advancement of Science said that there was no longer any "substantive disagreement in the scientific community" that artificial global warming is happening.

In 2005, the National Academy of Sciences joined the science academies of Britain, China, Germany, Japan and other nations in a joint statement saying, "There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring."

This year Mr. Karl of the climatic data center said research now supports "a substantial human impact on global temperature increases."

And this month the Climate Change Science Program, the Bush administration's coordinating agency for global-warming research, declared it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system."

Case closed. Earth's surface, atmosphere and seas are warming; ocean currents are slowing; ice shelves are melting faster than projected; spring is coming ever sooner; rainfall patterns are changing; North American migratory birds are ranging father north; the ability of the earth to self-regulate to resist warming appears to be waning. While natural variation may play roles in climatic trends, overwhelming evidence points to the accumulation of greenhouse gases, mainly from the burning of fossil fuels, as the key.”

Other points made by Mr. Easterbrook

Global warming benefits will be offset by drawbacks including sea level rise of as much as three feet (National Academy of Sciences), an increase in the frequency and strength of tropical storms, and the spread of diseases to warmer climates.

Biggest problem is harm to agricultural system feeding civilization by shifts in precipitation.

“Greenhouse gases are an air pollution problem, and all air pollution problems of the past have cost significantly less to fix than critics projected, and the solutions have worked faster than expected.”

Congress imposed regulations on smog emissions and technical advances followed. “Smog emissions in the United States have declined by almost half since 1970, and the technology that accomplishes this costs perhaps $100 per car.”

Tradable credit systems were established to use market mechanisms to generate profit in acid rain pollution reduction. “Since 1991 acid rain emissions have declined 36 percent, and the cost has been only 10 percent of what industry originally forecast. “

Now that is laughable...:D

I suspect you usually laugh at things you don't understand...

I suspect you usually laugh at things you don't understand...

Lets put it this way, with nearly 2/3s majorities in the Senate and 55%+ majorities in the Assembly for at least the last 30 years, if you are somehow trying to imply that Republicans or big business still pulls the strings than you are admitting the Democrats don't deserve to be in office because they are incompetant.

Lets put it this way, with nearly 2/3s majorities in the Senate and 55%+ majorities in the Assembly for at least the last 30 years, if you are somehow trying to imply that Republicans or big business still pulls the strings than you are admitting the Democrats don't deserve to be in office because they are incompetant.

From what I know about California buisness and environemtnal regulations, the Democrats are incompetent. They have implemented environmantal laws that do nothing for the environment but have run businesses out of the state.

Al Gore is an ass. Democrats are incompetent. Journalists present worst-case doomsday predictions as near certainties. None of this changes the fact that there is a substantial risk of catastrophic results from increasing CO2 emissions, and we aren't doing anything to mitigate the risk.

None of this changes the fact that there is a substantial risk of catastrophic results from increasing CO2 emissions, and we aren't doing anything to mitigate the risk.
Catastrophic, Catastrophic, if you say it enough times it must be true!!!
If it's going to be so Cstastrophic why was one of the warmest periods in Earth history called Holocene Climate Optimum???
Now if everything you say is true and we're going to warm up 10 degrees per decade, then we got some big problems, but those problems are probably related to gasses released 30+ years ago so there ain't sheet we can do about it.

Lets put it this way, with nearly 2/3s majorities in the Senate and 55%+ majorities in the Assembly for at least the last 30 years, if you are somehow trying to imply that Republicans or big business still pulls the strings than you are admitting the Democrats don't deserve to be in office because they are incompetant.

Democrats, Republicans and the big money developers who pull the strings have screwed the pooch. Don't try pretend that the Democrats are the only ones to blame because anyone with a highly functioning brain ain't buying that line of B.S.

Catastrophic, Catastrophic, if you say it enough times it must be true!!!
If it's going to be so Cstastrophic why was one of the warmest periods in Earth history called Holocene Climate Optimum???
Now if everything you say is true and we're going to warm up 10 degrees per decade, then we got some big problems, but those problems are probably related to gasses released 30+ years ago so there ain't sheet we can do about it.



Oh, well ok then... Let's just keep adding fuel to the fire then and party like it's the end of days.

Oh, well ok then... Let's just keep adding fuel to the fire then and party like it's the end of days.

i'm game, tonight i'm gonna pardy like gas is $.1999!!!:D:p:thumbsup: