|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
uberzev
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jan 2002
Posts: 19120
Location: SDSU
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes there are actually hundreds of scientists who disagree with the movie's premise. However there are tens of thousands who agree with it.
Believe what you want.
_________________
Lakers Gonna Lake |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
maddprophet
Star Player
Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 1952
Location: Hotlanta
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JIFISH wrote: | Since when did the Senate become a resource for scientific information?  This is a press release put out by the aides of some senator. And I'm pretty sure that senator receives sizable donations from the U.S. auto manufacturers. That press release doesn't even begin to pass the smell test. But you want us to throw out everything in the mainstream press because a couple of senate aides put out a press release claiming the Associated Press is biased.
We have an auto industry in this country that can't even sell it's cars in China because they don't meet the Chinese governments standards for emissions and fuel efficiency. And they are fighting tooth and nail to oppose a California requirement that they reduce emissions to slightly below that of China's requirements, because they say it will cost too much.
Why shouldn't the U.S. auto industry be able to make cars that run as efficiently and the Chinese, the Japanese, and the Europeans? Why is it that the U.S. drives 30% of the world's automotive vehicles but is responsible for over 50% of the greenhouse gases that go into the atmosphere each year? |
exactly. well put. now who has the political agenda and motivation???
and this fair and balanced doctrine of fox news is crap. there is not 2 sides to every story, at least not 2 respectable sides. most of the time, one side is correst, and the other is bull. but to demand both sides equal footing is nuts.
this is not even a debatable issue. i'm done! 
_________________
Spark the ism, my expertism, is lyracism, my flow will take you over like I was hypnotism...so where's the lighter, to start the cypher.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NoMoreGame7s
Star Player
Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 3818
Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What a joke that the one guy claiming that we shouldn't believe the movie, due to the fact that it is nothing more than political propoganda, uses a senator's press release as his supporting documentation.
_________________
I got a fever....and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Thanks for the avatar, Hybrid27. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Dagger
Star Player
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 7276
Location: Sovngarde
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NoMoreGame7s wrote: | | What a joke that the one guy claiming that we shouldn't believe the movie, due to the fact that it is nothing more than political propoganda, uses a senator's press release as his supporting documentation. |
Michael Moore fan I see...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheRod
Star Player
Joined: 24 Dec 2003
Posts: 2019
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Dagger wrote: | | NoMoreGame7s wrote: | | What a joke that the one guy claiming that we shouldn't believe the movie, due to the fact that it is nothing more than political propoganda, uses a senator's press release as his supporting documentation. |
Michael Moore fan I see... |
You constantly bring up the political side to this issue. Not everyone here that enjoyed Gore's message is a Democrat. We are all waiting for your SCIENTIFIC evidence that refutes Gore's message of Global Warming. Your partisan article doesn't count. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mike_dee23
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 11703
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Just curious, guys... to satisfy my own curiosity... how long has global warming been on your mind. I mean, for me, I took a class in 98 that discussed it a lot. So a lot of the stuff I am hearing is old news. But I guess for a lot of people, this stuff is brand new. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheRod
Star Player
Joined: 24 Dec 2003
Posts: 2019
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I remember asking my brother about it way back in the early nineties when I was a young buck. His response, "That's Gore's favorite subject." Since then, I've heard of global warming. A lot of disinformation has been circulated, so I think that because of that the issue has been kept on the down low for awhile. I'm happy that Gore produced this film.....it allows people to ask questions about the topic, and make their own decisions based on the information provided. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JIFISH
Star Player
Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 9315
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The issue of sustainability of life on this planet has been on my mind since about 1959, when I was a highschool freshman. The issue of global warming and greenhouse gases is something that has concerned me since about 1970 or thereabouts. I've never driven a car---always carpooled, relied on public transportation or simply walked to where I was going.
_________________
I would rather have questions I cannot answer than answers I cannot question - Richard Feynman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Dagger
Star Player
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 7276
Location: Sovngarde
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheRod wrote: | | The Dagger wrote: | | NoMoreGame7s wrote: | | What a joke that the one guy claiming that we shouldn't believe the movie, due to the fact that it is nothing more than political propoganda, uses a senator's press release as his supporting documentation. |
Michael Moore fan I see... |
You constantly bring up the political side to this issue. Not everyone here that enjoyed Gore's message is a Democrat. We are all waiting for your SCIENTIFIC evidence that refutes Gore's message of Global Warming. Your partisan article doesn't count. |
You are only assuming that I am bringing up the political side...probably because it hit a nerve. Usually does with your types. For your information I am non-partisan - I voted for W Bush AND Clinton. What I don't do, is believe every thing I see. I do my OWN research and make my OWN decisions. I NEVER rely on politically motivated movies and media like some of you here. And despite what you say it is exactly that. It was produced by Al Gore for pete's sake. As for your scientific evidence - do your own research. It is not my job to try and convince you. From my own experience people like you do not want convincing, because you have already made up your mind. So peace be with you bro. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mike_dee23
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 11703
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Dagger wrote: | | TheRod wrote: | | The Dagger wrote: | | NoMoreGame7s wrote: | | What a joke that the one guy claiming that we shouldn't believe the movie, due to the fact that it is nothing more than political propoganda, uses a senator's press release as his supporting documentation. |
Michael Moore fan I see... |
You constantly bring up the political side to this issue. Not everyone here that enjoyed Gore's message is a Democrat. We are all waiting for your SCIENTIFIC evidence that refutes Gore's message of Global Warming. Your partisan article doesn't count. |
You are only assuming that I am bringing up the political side...probably because it hit a nerve. Usually does with your types. For your information I am non-partisan - I voted for W Bush AND Clinton. What I don't do, is believe every thing I see. I do my OWN research and make my OWN decisions. I NEVER rely on politically motivated movies and media like some of you here. And despite what you say it is exactly that. It was produced by Al Gore for pete's sake. As for your scientific evidence - do your own research. It is not my job to try and convince you. From my own experience people like you do not want convincing, because you have already made up your mind. So peace be with you bro. |
It wasn't produced by Al Gore... If you did your own research, you'd know that the world is warming up. Some of it MAY be natural, but most of it isn't. Why don't you see the movie and then come back and talk to us. Thanks.
Produced by
Lawrence Bender .... producer
Scott Burns .... producer
Scott Z. Burns .... producer
Lesley Chilcott .... co-producer
Davis Guggenheim .... executive producer
Laurie Lennard .... producer (as Laurie David)
Jeff Skoll .... executive producer
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/fullcredits |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Dagger
Star Player
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 7276
Location: Sovngarde
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mike_dee23 wrote: | | The Dagger wrote: | | TheRod wrote: | | The Dagger wrote: | | NoMoreGame7s wrote: | | What a joke that the one guy claiming that we shouldn't believe the movie, due to the fact that it is nothing more than political propoganda, uses a senator's press release as his supporting documentation. |
Michael Moore fan I see... |
You constantly bring up the political side to this issue. Not everyone here that enjoyed Gore's message is a Democrat. We are all waiting for your SCIENTIFIC evidence that refutes Gore's message of Global Warming. Your partisan article doesn't count. |
You are only assuming that I am bringing up the political side...probably because it hit a nerve. Usually does with your types. For your information I am non-partisan - I voted for W Bush AND Clinton. What I don't do, is believe every thing I see. I do my OWN research and make my OWN decisions. I NEVER rely on politically motivated movies and media like some of you here. And despite what you say it is exactly that. It was produced by Al Gore for pete's sake. As for your scientific evidence - do your own research. It is not my job to try and convince you. From my own experience people like you do not want convincing, because you have already made up your mind. So peace be with you bro. |
It wasn't produced by Al Gore... If you did your own research, you'd know that the world is warming up. Some of it MAY be natural, but most of it isn't. Why don't you see the movie and then come back and talk to us. Thanks.
Produced by
Lawrence Bender .... producer
Scott Burns .... producer
Scott Z. Burns .... producer
Lesley Chilcott .... co-producer
Davis Guggenheim .... executive producer
Laurie Lennard .... producer (as Laurie David)
Jeff Skoll .... executive producer
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/fullcredits |
Nice deflection brah... We all know who's behind this. Quit trying to make like Al Gorleone had nothing to do with this movie. And like I said, my research does not consist of watching movies. Movies are for entertainment. Why don't you try reading a book or a newspaper and then come back and talk. Peace bro. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Dagger
Star Player
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 7276
Location: Sovngarde
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Okay you win, I did a little more research for you movie buffs.... 
| Quote: | 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", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. 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.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."
But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.
The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.
Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."
Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."
Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."
Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mike_dee23
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 11703
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Dagger wrote: | Okay you win, I did a little more research for you movie buffs....
| Quote: | 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", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. 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.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."
But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.
The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.
Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."
Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."
Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."
Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual." |
|
hahahahaha.... you freakin' posted an article from an ultra-conservative writer... NICE. Good job convincing us...
Here, how about an article from Science? You know, a non-biased legit source of information. Doesn't lean left or right... just Science.
| Quote: | Science 12 May 2006:
Vol. 312. no. 5775, p. 825
DOI: 10.1126/science.312.5775.825
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
News of the Week
GLOBAL CHANGE:
No Doubt About It, the World Is Warming
Richard A. Kerr
Global warming contrarians can cross out one of their last talking points. A report released last week* settles the debate over how the atmosphere has been warming the past 35 years. The report, the first of 21 the Bush Administration has commissioned to study lingering problems of global climate change, finds that satellite-borne instruments and thermometers at the surface now agree: The world is warming throughout the lower atmosphere, not just at the surface, about the way greenhouse climate models predict.
"The evidence continues to support a substantial human impact on global temperature increases," added the report's chief editor Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina. The additional support for global warming will not change White House policy, however. Michele St. Martin, spokesperson for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, says President George W. Bush believes that greenhouse gas emissions can be brought down through better use of energy while the understanding of climate science continues to improve.
Critics who blasted research under the White House's Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) (Science, 27 February 2004, p. 1269) as mere obfuscation might not have expected such a forthright conclusion from the report. Karl attributes the clarity to the CCSP approach. "For the first time, we had people [who initially disagreed] sitting down across the table. That's a tremendous advantage," he says. "The process is great for improving understanding. It led to not just synthesis but to advancing the science." The CCSP synthesis and assessment process prompted new, independent analyses that helped eliminate some long-standing differences, Karl says.
The 21 authors of the report included researchers who for years had been battling in the literature over the proper way to analyze the satellite data. Meteorologists John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, were the first to construct a long record of lower-atmosphere temperature from temperature-dependent emissions observed by Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) flown on satellites. By the early 1990s, Christy and Spencer could see little or no significant warming of the middle of the troposphere--the lowermost layer of the atmosphere--since the beginning of the satellite record in 1979, although surface temperature had risen.
In recent years, report authors Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, California, and Konstantin Vinnikov of the University of Maryland, College Park, led separate groups analyzing the MSU data. They and others found atmospheric warming more on a par with the observed surface warming (Science, 7 May 2004, p. 805). Hashing out those differences over the same table "was a pretty draining experience," says Christy.
In the end, the time and effort paid off, says Karl. The report authors eventually identified several errors in earlier analyses, such as not properly allowing for a satellite's orbital drift. They had additional years of data that lengthened a relatively short record. And they could compare observations with simulations from 20 different climate models, which researchers had prepared for an upcoming international climate change assessment. The report authors found that over the 25-year satellite record, the surface and the midtroposphere each warmed roughly 0.15°C per decade averaged over the globe, give or take 0.05°C or so per decade. The tropics proved to be an exception: The models called for more warming aloft than at the surface lately, whereas most observations showed the reverse. Reconciling that discrepancy will have to wait for the next round of synthesis and assessment. |
or how about this Republican-called for commission on global warming, which submitted its report last week... as reported by AP.
| Quote: |
Report: Global Warming Is Real
John Heilprin, Associated Press
type size: [A] [A] [A]
June 22, 2006 — The Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, probably even longer.
The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."
A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers the Earth is heating up and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming."
Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about one degree during the 20th century.
This is shown in boreholes, retreating glaciers and other evidence found in nature, said Gerald North, a geosciences professor at Texas A&M University who chaired the academy's panel.
The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.
Last year, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, launched an investigation of three climate scientists, Boehlert said Barton should try to learn from scientists, not intimidate them.
Boehlert said Thursday the report shows the value of having scientists advise Congress.
"There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change," he said.
Other new research Thursday showed that global warming produced about half of the extra warmth in the North Atlantic in 2005, and natural cycles were a minor factor,according to Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the Commerce Department's National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Their study is being published by the American Geophysical Union.
The Bush administration has maintained that the threat is not severe enough to warrant new pollution controls that the White House says would have cost 5 million Americans their jobs.
Climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes had concluded the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years. Their research was known as the "hockey-stick" graphic because it compared the sharp curve of the hockey blade to the recent uptick in temperatures and the stick's long shaft to centuries of previous climate stability.
The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes research from the late 1990s was likely to be true, said John "Mike" Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member. The conclusions from the '90s research "are very close to being right" and are supported by even more recent data, Wallace said.
The panel looked at how other scientists reconstructed the Earth's temperatures going back thousands of years, before there was data from modern scientific instruments.
For all but the most recent 150 years, the scientists relied on "proxy" evidence from tree rings, corals, glaciers and ice cores, cave deposits, ocean and lake sediments, boreholes and other sources. They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps.
Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years," the academy said. |
or is the AP now in the hands of the left wing?
If "sheep" means following something that's absolutely 100 percent true, then count me in... baaah... Global warming is a fact. Sorry, buddy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Dagger
Star Player
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 7276
Location: Sovngarde
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
^
Doesn't matter where it came from, the quotes listed are not the writer's. Did you read it?
Either way, I always listen to both sides of every issue. The truth usually lies somewhere in between. To ignore one side is as ignorant as not listening to either. I watch CNN AND Foxnews equally, so I can hear both sides. I read liberal AND conservative publications. That is the only way to find out the truth.
As for global warming...to come out and say it is FACT is about as ignorant as saying what is it? No one knows 100%. I would NEVER come out and say that it is fact that global warming is not happening. I am not that close minded.
I am glad you also did your research so everyone here can read up on both sides of the issue. That is the only way find the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mike_dee23
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 11703
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Dagger wrote: | ^
Doesn't matter where it came from, the quotes listed are not the writer's. Did you read it?
Either way, I always listen to both sides of every issue. The truth usually lies somewhere in between. To ignore one side is as ignorant as not listening to either. I watch CNN AND Foxnews equally, so I can hear both sides. I read liberal AND conservative publications. That is the only way to find out the truth.
As for global warming...to come out and say it is FACT is about as ignorant as saying what is it? No one knows 100%. I would NEVER come out and say that it is fact that global warming is not happening. I am not that close minded.
I am glad you also did your research so everyone here can read up on both sides of the issue. That is the only way find the truth. |
Well, there are three sides - one side, the other side and the truth, right? 
one thing, I would not say CNN is liberal - it is far from that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
maddprophet
Star Player
Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 1952
Location: Hotlanta
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dagger, you're a joke man, that's it, a joke. i'll say it one more time...
THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL ISSUE YOU DIMWIT!!!
_________________
Spark the ism, my expertism, is lyracism, my flow will take you over like I was hypnotism...so where's the lighter, to start the cypher.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Dagger
Star Player
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 7276
Location: Sovngarde
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| maddprophet wrote: | dagger, you're a joke man, that's it, a joke. i'll say it one more time...
THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL ISSUE YOU DIMWIT!!! |
Ha Ha! Obviously it is to you, based on your reaction. Thanks for the laugh buddy. What would life be, without people like you for comic relief. This is great! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flight
Star Player
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 4740
Location: The OC
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| maddprophet wrote: | dagger, you're a joke man, that's it, a joke. i'll say it one more time...
THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL ISSUE YOU DIMWIT!!! |
All fans are welcome but any spam/smack/obscenities/ads/personal attacks will be deleted. We're serious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
- Sean -
Star Player
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 7339
Location: L.A.
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If you were interested in "An Inconvenient Truth," you may also want to see "Who Killed The Electric Car?"...which I just came back from...and although a completely different subject, "The Road To Guantanamo" plays in the same sorts of theatres the other 2 appear in...and that too is an interesting story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheRod
Star Player
Joined: 24 Dec 2003
Posts: 2019
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sean2023 wrote: | | If you were interested in "An Inconvenient Truth," you may also want to see "Who Killed The Electric Car?"...which I just came back from...and although a completely different subject, "The Road To Guantanamo" plays in the same sorts of theatres the other 2 appear in...and that too is an interesting story. |
I've been meaning to check out Road to Guantanamo.....looks like I'm heading over to the UCI theater again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uberzev
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jan 2002
Posts: 19120
Location: SDSU
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Dagger
Star Player
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 7276
Location: Sovngarde
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | MIT Professor Declares Gore’s Global Warming Crusade a ‘Bait-and-Switch Scam’
Posted by Noel Sheppard on July 2, 2006 - 13:51.
Pardon the pun, but the concept of global warming came under some more heat today from the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, Richard S. Lindzen. Some of you might be familiar with the name Lindzen. He has been a strong antagonist to global warmingists – especially Al Gore – and wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal back in April wherein he not only contested media assertions that the Bush administration has been putting pressure on scientists to oppose climate change principles, but avowed that exactly the opposite is the case: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.”
Well, Lindzen wrote another WSJ op-ed published on Sunday entitled “Don't Believe the Hype,” with a subheading – “Al Gore is wrong. There's no ‘consensus’ on global warming.” This one further attacked the junk science involved in this theory, as well as the preposterous claim being made by Al Gore that there is actually a consensus in the scientific community about the issue:
“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.”
Lindzen then went through a meticulous examination of just how little consensus actually exists, and that any suggestion to the contrary is just a gaseous emission:
“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.’"
Lindzen offered several examples of how preposterous these assertions of a consensus are, including:
“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.”
Thus, it appears quite simple to identify a consensus with data about those whose views are falsely depicted as part of such consensus.
Lindzen marvelously concluded his piece (emphasis mine):
“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.”
I guess it’s safe to say that Professor Lindzen is not part of the consensus that people like Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and the overwhelming majority of the drive-by media are continually telling the citizenry – despite all the evidence to the contrary – exists.http://newsbusters.org/node/6231 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JIFISH
Star Player
Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 9315
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.
We’re already seeing changes. Glaciers are melting, plants and animals are being forced from their habitat, and the number of severe storms and droughts is increasing.
The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.
Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level.
The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade.
At least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving closer to the poles.
If the warming continues, we can expect catastrophic consequences.
Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years -- to 300,000 people a year.
Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.
Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense.
Droughts and wildfires will occur more often.
The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050.
More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.
_________________
I would rather have questions I cannot answer than answers I cannot question - Richard Feynman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ALF
Starting Rotation
Joined: 14 Jul 2001
Posts: 331
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lindzen is a paid consultant for oil companies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dwonderful
Star Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 1343
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:40 pm Post subject: Global Warming |
|
|
I saw in Inconvenient Truth that supposedly all the fish would be gone in 20 years, and the bird population would decrease 60 percent. I am not meaning this to turn into a political debate, but I want to hear opinions.
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
