Scientists respond to Gore’s warnings of climate catastrophe “The Inconvenient Truth” is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris Monday, June 12, 2006
“Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it,” Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film “An Inconvenient Truth.” With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of “climate change skeptics” who disagree with the “vast majority of scientists” Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. “Climate experts” is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore’s “majority of scientists” think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. “While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change,” explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. “They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies.”
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn’t make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. “These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios,” asserts Ball. “Since modelers concede computer outputs are not “predictions” but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts.”
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
So what is your sugguestion then? All you seem to say is that not all scientists agree that we are causing climate changes. Woop de doo, lots of people disagree on lots of things. Do you honestly believe that pumping billions of pounds of CO2 into the environment will have no impact on climate? We should at the very least try to minimize what we do TO the environment (polluting it), and at the same time, as the article states, prepare ourselves in the very real event that the icecaps melt and sea levels rise.
prepare a fancy manifesto and throw $1.47 billion dollars a year at the problem. Just what any educated scientist would do. Whats that, you say?
An educated scientist wouldn’t do that?
Oh thats right. An educated scientist
would put forth a hypothesis and then test until he could call it a truth.
Unlike an educated politician. He makes a
movie and finds the wife of a comedian to produce and direct it, then sits back and makes a bunch of money. Because he knows the world is full of schmucks who would gladly give away their money to feel good before they would ever rationally consider both sides of a lengthy, complicated subject that will develop over a PERIOD OF YEARS, with or without an Oscar (you remember ‘An Inconvenient Theory’, right up there with ‘Towering Inferno’ and the ‘Poseidon Adventure’). Docudrama as policy. I hate to think whats next. Before you know it, they will be showing the docudrama in schools and teaching our kids the ‘truth du jour’ until the next election cycle.
If the northn ice cap melted there would be zero effect on shorlines because it is an ocean. In other words, the ice is water and it is already in the ocean.
There used to be dinosaurs and tropical plants in Antarctica, so we can expect climate to change now and then whether we like it nor not.
C02 is only 5% of “greenhouse gases,” water vapor is 90%.
If we pump more C02 into the air, plants will get bigger since they breathe it. Bigger plants emit more 02.
C02 levels have been much higher than they are now, most notably during the last Ice Age, which lasted thousands of years.
All or nothing. Of course we have some effect, not as much as what some think, but some effect. I just (as a total non-scientist) don’t want to throw trillions in the dumper and cause our economy to completely collapse on a non-proven theory. Clean up the environment, use our resources more frugally sure, but don’t punish us by causing economic collapse as seems to be suggested by the inventor of the internet.
But that’s the point. The Inventor of the Internet knows it’s all a fraud. It’s a power grab, an attempt to control everything in the name of “saving the planet.”
I saw an article yesterday about “global cooling” being the real problem, believe it or not.
Recent research by Henrik Svensmark and his group at the Danish National
Space Center points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In a
series of experiments on the formation of clouds, these scientists have
shown that fluctuations in the Sun’s output cause the observed changes in the
Earth’s temperature.
In the past, scientists believed the fluctuations in the Sun’s output were
too small to cause the observed amount of temperature change, hence the need
to look for other causes like carbon dioxide. However, these new
experiments show that fluctuations in the Sun’s output are in fact large
enough, so there is no longer a need to resort to carbon dioxide as the
cause of the recent warming trend.
The discovery of the real cause of the recent increase in the Earth’s
temperature is indeed a convenient truth. It means humans are not to blame
for the increase. It also means there is absolutely nothing we can, much
less do, to correct the situation.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Canada
Ph. 807 3457258
Your readers might be interested in these websites.
I think that in a matter of a few years, if not months, this will be a non-issue and the Al Gores of the world won’t be able to be taken seriously ordering a cup of coffee, let alone trying to save the world from mankind. Everyone promoting him and his ilk, including potentially the Nobel Prizes committee, will be licking their reputations’ wounds for years.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Scientists respond to Gore’s warnings of climate catastrophe “The Inconvenient Truth” is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris Monday, June 12, 2006
“Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it,” Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film “An Inconvenient Truth.” With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of “climate change skeptics” who disagree with the “vast majority of scientists” Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. “Climate experts” is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore’s “majority of scientists” think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. “While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change,” explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. “They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies.”
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn’t make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. “These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios,” asserts Ball. “Since modelers concede computer outputs are not “predictions” but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts.”
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
So what is your sugguestion then? All you seem to say is that not all scientists agree that we are causing climate changes. Woop de doo, lots of people disagree on lots of things. Do you honestly believe that pumping billions of pounds of CO2 into the environment will have no impact on climate? We should at the very least try to minimize what we do TO the environment (polluting it), and at the same time, as the article states, prepare ourselves in the very real event that the icecaps melt and sea levels rise.
prepare a fancy manifesto and throw $1.47 billion dollars a year at the problem. Just what any educated scientist would do. Whats that, you say?
An educated scientist wouldn’t do that?
Oh thats right. An educated scientist
would put forth a hypothesis and then test until he could call it a truth.
Unlike an educated politician. He makes a
movie and finds the wife of a comedian to produce and direct it, then sits back and makes a bunch of money. Because he knows the world is full of schmucks who would gladly give away their money to feel good before they would ever rationally consider both sides of a lengthy, complicated subject that will develop over a PERIOD OF YEARS, with or without an Oscar (you remember ‘An Inconvenient Theory’, right up there with ‘Towering Inferno’ and the ‘Poseidon Adventure’). Docudrama as policy. I hate to think whats next. Before you know it, they will be showing the docudrama in schools and teaching our kids the ‘truth du jour’ until the next election cycle.
The question is, What ended the Ice Age?
If the northn ice cap melted there would be zero effect on shorlines because it is an ocean. In other words, the ice is water and it is already in the ocean.
There used to be dinosaurs and tropical plants in Antarctica, so we can expect climate to change now and then whether we like it nor not.
C02 is only 5% of “greenhouse gases,” water vapor is 90%.
If we pump more C02 into the air, plants will get bigger since they breathe it. Bigger plants emit more 02.
C02 levels have been much higher than they are now, most notably during the last Ice Age, which lasted thousands of years.
What ended the last Ice Age?
All or nothing. Of course we have some effect, not as much as what some think, but some effect. I just (as a total non-scientist) don’t want to throw trillions in the dumper and cause our economy to completely collapse on a non-proven theory. Clean up the environment, use our resources more frugally sure, but don’t punish us by causing economic collapse as seems to be suggested by the inventor of the internet.
But that’s the point. The Inventor of the Internet knows it’s all a fraud. It’s a power grab, an attempt to control everything in the name of “saving the planet.”
I saw an article yesterday about “global cooling” being the real problem, believe it or not.
Dear Editor, June 22/07
Recent research by Henrik Svensmark and his group at the Danish National
Space Center points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In a
series of experiments on the formation of clouds, these scientists have
shown that fluctuations in the Sun’s output cause the observed changes in the
Earth’s temperature.
In the past, scientists believed the fluctuations in the Sun’s output were
too small to cause the observed amount of temperature change, hence the need
to look for other causes like carbon dioxide. However, these new
experiments show that fluctuations in the Sun’s output are in fact large
enough, so there is no longer a need to resort to carbon dioxide as the
cause of the recent warming trend.
The discovery of the real cause of the recent increase in the Earth’s
temperature is indeed a convenient truth. It means humans are not to blame
for the increase. It also means there is absolutely nothing we can, much
less do, to correct the situation.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Canada
Ph. 807 3457258
Your readers might be interested in these websites.
Please paste these links in your browser.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
http://www.unikron.com/play/play_display.cgi?speed=hi&id=canadian_values_march1
http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2007/04_26-32/LIF
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=&IsTextOnly=True
Thomas,
Here’s another good link, proving that not all US Senators are craven cretins chasing media approval in this matter.
Thanks Chilly:)
I post all over the world about climate change
“I post all over the world about climate change.”
I think that in a matter of a few years, if not months, this will be a non-issue and the Al Gores of the world won’t be able to be taken seriously ordering a cup of coffee, let alone trying to save the world from mankind. Everyone promoting him and his ilk, including potentially the Nobel Prizes committee, will be licking their reputations’ wounds for years.