How many of you who have actually seen “An Inconvenient Truth” I suppose you all are in line with the “Intelligent Design”, believe there is some super invisible entity that built the universe in the time frame of seven earth rotations around the sun, and earth is really a flat disc, etc. I believe all of that, no questions asked.
When I was in college in the 60’s, I had a class about the envrionment & caring for the earth. Interestingly enough, it was the tale of Bubonic Plague from a flea’s perspective & basically said “Don’t kill your Rat!”. Aside from the causes, we don’t need to make things worse, do we? Appears we are all on the same page there. Now, lets go get some beer!
Judge Michael Burton ruled yesterday that errors had arisen “in the context of alarmism and exaggeration” in order to support Mr Gore’s thesis on global warming.
Regardless, you kind of have to admire someone, on some level, who can garner this many awards so quickly. He’ll be voted in as the next pope – wait and see.
Al Gore stars in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’
On the eve of Al Gore’s award of the Nobel Peace Prize, a think tank wrote the president of the Academy Awards asking that the Oscar given to his film “An Inconvenient Truth” be taken back in response to a British High Court ruling that found 11 serious inaccuracies in the documentary.
Muriel Newman, director of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, told Academy President Sid Ganis and Executive Director Bruce Davis “the situation is not unlike that confronting sports bodies when their sports stars are found to be drug cheats.”
“In such cases, the sportsmen and women are stripped of their medals and titles, with the next place-getter elevated,” she said, according the Australian Associated Press. “While this is an extremely unpleasant duty, it is necessary if the integrity of competitive sport is to be protected.
British High Court judge Michael Burton ruled Wednesday Gore’s documentary should be shown in British schools only with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination. The decision followed a lawsuit by a father, Stewart Dimmock, who claimed the film contained “serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush.”
Yeah, one of Al Gore’s henchmen said that “you gotta look at this (global warming) as a religion;’ not those exact words but very close. I also read recently that one of the global warming “experts” who predicted that man is “destroying the planet by global warming” was writing back in the ’70’s that “global cooling” was the biggest threat around and that there was no way that the planet would warm.
Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990’s when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”
In my view it only makes sense that mankind has an impact on the environment – and the global temperature. How much of an impact is the question. It has been proven the earth has cycled between ice ages and warmer ages for billions of years, so I can’t blame all of our climate changes on us. My honest opinion (not based on any research mind you) is that humanity affects global temperature about as much as a flea on a big dog – yeah it’ll annoy but won’t kill.
With that being said it also makes sense to me for mankind to work toward “greener” alternatives for energy and consumption. The less we pollute the better off we are.
Since scientist are split 50/50 down ideological lines on global warming I reserve any firm judgement. Everything I think about global warming makes sense only to me based on a very basic understanding of the issues.
Reference
Allen, J.R.M., Long, A.J., Ottley, C.J., Pearson, D.G. and Huntley, B. 2007. Holocene climate variability in northernmost Europe. Quaternary Science Reviews 26: 1432-1453.
What was done
The authors analyzed pollen characteristics within sediment cores retrieved from a small unnamed lake located at 71°02’18″N, 28°10’6.6″E near the coast of Nordkinnhalvoya, Finnmark, Norway, after which they used the results of this effort to construct a climatic history of the area over the course of the Holocene.
What was learned
Allen et al. found that “regional vegetation responded to Holocene climatic variability at centennial-millennial time scales.” Within the timeframe that most interests us – and which is of most significance for evaluating the nature of modern global warming – they report that “the most recent widely documented cooling event, the Little Ice Age of ca 450-100 cal BP, also is reflected in our data by a minimum in Pinus:Betula [pollen] ratio beginning ca 300 cal BP and ending only in the recent past,” and they add that “the Dark Ages cool interval, a period during which various other proxies indicate cooling in Fennoscandia and beyond, is evident too, corresponding to lower values of Pinus:Betula [pollen] ratio ca 1600-1100 cal BP.” In addition, they state that “the Medieval Warm Period that separated the latter two cool intervals also is strongly reflected in our data, as is the warm period around two millennia ago during which the Roman Empire reached its peak.”
What it means
These findings are but another common example of an important aspect of earth’s climate and how it operates: it oscillates back and forth between centennial-scale intervals of relative cold and warmth with a full-period temporal mean of approximately 1500 years (see Climate Oscillations (Millennial Variability) in our Subject Index). Viewed in this light, the development of the Current Warm Period over the past century or so is readily recognized to be nothing more than the most recent – and expected – manifestation of this natural cycling of earth’s climate; and this knowledge suggests that our current relative warmth is likely not a response to the historical increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration. It is a totally independent phenomenon.
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.
How many of you who have actually seen “An Inconvenient Truth” I suppose you all are in line with the “Intelligent Design”, believe there is some super invisible entity that built the universe in the time frame of seven earth rotations around the sun, and earth is really a flat disc, etc. I believe all of that, no questions asked.
When I was in college in the 60’s, I had a class about the envrionment & caring for the earth. Interestingly enough, it was the tale of Bubonic Plague from a flea’s perspective & basically said “Don’t kill your Rat!”. Aside from the causes, we don’t need to make things worse, do we? Appears we are all on the same page there. Now, lets go get some beer!
Judge Michael Burton ruled yesterday that errors had arisen “in the context of alarmism and exaggeration” in order to support Mr Gore’s thesis on global warming.
Sorry – laughing so hard I leaned on the keyboard. Guess both Al and I can make a little mistake.
Regardless, you kind of have to admire someone, on some level, who can garner this many awards so quickly. He’ll be voted in as the next pope – wait and see.
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58111
Al Gore stars in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’
On the eve of Al Gore’s award of the Nobel Peace Prize, a think tank wrote the president of the Academy Awards asking that the Oscar given to his film “An Inconvenient Truth” be taken back in response to a British High Court ruling that found 11 serious inaccuracies in the documentary.
Muriel Newman, director of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, told Academy President Sid Ganis and Executive Director Bruce Davis “the situation is not unlike that confronting sports bodies when their sports stars are found to be drug cheats.”
“In such cases, the sportsmen and women are stripped of their medals and titles, with the next place-getter elevated,” she said, according the Australian Associated Press. “While this is an extremely unpleasant duty, it is necessary if the integrity of competitive sport is to be protected.
British High Court judge Michael Burton ruled Wednesday Gore’s documentary should be shown in British schools only with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination. The decision followed a lawsuit by a father, Stewart Dimmock, who claimed the film contained “serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush.”
Click link above for more.
Yeah, one of Al Gore’s henchmen said that “you gotta look at this (global warming) as a religion;’ not those exact words but very close. I also read recently that one of the global warming “experts” who predicted that man is “destroying the planet by global warming” was writing back in the ’70’s that “global cooling” was the biggest threat around and that there was no way that the planet would warm.
Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990’s when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”
In my view it only makes sense that mankind has an impact on the environment – and the global temperature. How much of an impact is the question. It has been proven the earth has cycled between ice ages and warmer ages for billions of years, so I can’t blame all of our climate changes on us. My honest opinion (not based on any research mind you) is that humanity affects global temperature about as much as a flea on a big dog – yeah it’ll annoy but won’t kill.
With that being said it also makes sense to me for mankind to work toward “greener” alternatives for energy and consumption. The less we pollute the better off we are.
Since scientist are split 50/50 down ideological lines on global warming I reserve any firm judgement. Everything I think about global warming makes sense only to me based on a very basic understanding of the issues.
A Record of Millennial-Scale Climate Variability from Northernmost Europe
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N34/C2.jsp
Reference
Allen, J.R.M., Long, A.J., Ottley, C.J., Pearson, D.G. and Huntley, B. 2007. Holocene climate variability in northernmost Europe. Quaternary Science Reviews 26: 1432-1453.
What was done
The authors analyzed pollen characteristics within sediment cores retrieved from a small unnamed lake located at 71°02’18″N, 28°10’6.6″E near the coast of Nordkinnhalvoya, Finnmark, Norway, after which they used the results of this effort to construct a climatic history of the area over the course of the Holocene.
What was learned
Allen et al. found that “regional vegetation responded to Holocene climatic variability at centennial-millennial time scales.” Within the timeframe that most interests us – and which is of most significance for evaluating the nature of modern global warming – they report that “the most recent widely documented cooling event, the Little Ice Age of ca 450-100 cal BP, also is reflected in our data by a minimum in Pinus:Betula [pollen] ratio beginning ca 300 cal BP and ending only in the recent past,” and they add that “the Dark Ages cool interval, a period during which various other proxies indicate cooling in Fennoscandia and beyond, is evident too, corresponding to lower values of Pinus:Betula [pollen] ratio ca 1600-1100 cal BP.” In addition, they state that “the Medieval Warm Period that separated the latter two cool intervals also is strongly reflected in our data, as is the warm period around two millennia ago during which the Roman Empire reached its peak.”
What it means
These findings are but another common example of an important aspect of earth’s climate and how it operates: it oscillates back and forth between centennial-scale intervals of relative cold and warmth with a full-period temporal mean of approximately 1500 years (see Climate Oscillations (Millennial Variability) in our Subject Index). Viewed in this light, the development of the Current Warm Period over the past century or so is readily recognized to be nothing more than the most recent – and expected – manifestation of this natural cycling of earth’s climate; and this knowledge suggests that our current relative warmth is likely not a response to the historical increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration. It is a totally independent phenomenon.
Reviewed 22 August 2007