Compiled by Christopher Horner, author of "The Politically Incorrect
Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism"
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19468
10. The U.S. is going it alone on Kyoto and global warming.
Nonsense. The U.S. rejects the Kyoto Protocol's energy-rationing
scheme, along with 155 other countries, representing most of the
world's population, economic activity and projected future growth.
Kyoto is a European treaty with one dozen others, none of whom is in
fact presently reducing its emissions. Similarly, claims that Bush
refused to sign Kyoto, and/or he withdrew, not only are mutually
exclusive but also false. We signed it, Nov. 11, 1998. The Senate
won't vote on it. Ergo, the (Democratic) Senate is blocking Kyoto.
Gosh.
Don't demand they behave otherwise, however. Since Kyoto was agreed,
Europe's CO2 emissions are rising twice as fast as those of the
climate-criminal United States, a gap that is widening in more recent
years. So we should jump on a sinking ship?
Given Al Gore's proclivity for invoking Winston Churchill in this
drama, it is only appropriate to summarize his claims as such: Never
in the field of political conflict has so much been asked by so few of
so many ... for so little.
9. Global-warming proposals are about the environment.
Only if this means that they would make things worse, given that
"wealthier is healthier and cleaner." Even accepting every underlying
economic and alarmist environmentalist assumption, no one dares say
that the expensive Kyoto Protocol would detectably affect climate.
Imagine how expensive a pact must be -- in both financial and human
costs -- to so severely ration energy use as the greens demand.
Instead, proponents candidly admit desires to control others'
lifestyles, and supportive industries all hope to make millions off
the deal. Europe's former environment commissioner admitted that Kyoto
is "about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide" (in
other words, bailing them out).
8. Climate change is the greatest threat to the world's poor.
Climate -- or more accurately, weather -- remains one of the greatest
challenges facing the poor. Climate change adds nothing to that
calculus, however. Climate and weather patterns have always changed,
as they always will. Man has always best dealt with this through
wealth creation and technological advance -- a.k.a. adaptation -- and
most poorly through superstitious casting of blame, such as burning
"witches." The wealthiest societies have always adapted best. One
would prefer to face a similar storm in Florida than Bangladesh.
Institutions, infrastructure and affordable energy are key to dealing
with an ever-changing climate, not rationing energy.
7. Global warming means more frequent, more severe storms.
Here again the alarmists cannot even turn to the wildly distorted and
politicized "Summary for Policy Makers" of the UN's IPCC to support
this favorite chestnut of the press.
6. Global warming has doomed the polar bears!
For some reason, Al Gore's computerized polar bear can't swim, unlike
the real kind, as one might expect of an animal named Ursa Maritimus.
On the whole, these bears are thriving, if a little less well in those
areas of the Arctic that are cooling (yes, cooling). Their biggest
threat seems to be computer models that air-brush them from the
future, the same models that tell us it is much warmer now than it is.
As usual in this context, you must answer the question: Who are you
going to believe -- me or your lying eyes?
5. Climate change is raising the sea levels.
Sea levels rise during interglacial periods such as that in which we
(happily) find ourselves. Even the distorted United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports refute the hysteria,
finding no statistically significant change in the rate of increase
over the past century of man's greatest influence, despite green
claims of massive melting already occurring. Small island nations
seeking welfare and asylum for their citizens such as in socially
generous New Zealand and Australia have no sea-level rise at all and
in some cases see instead a drop. These societies' real problem is
typically that they have made a mess of their own situation. One
archipelago nation is even spending lavishly to lobby the European
Union for development money to build beachfront hotel resorts, at the
same time it shrieks about a watery and imminent grave. So, which time
are they lying?
4. The glaciers are melting!
As good fortune has it, frozen things do in fact melt or at least
recede after cooling periods mercifully end. The glacial retreat we
read about is selective, however. Glaciers are also advancing all
over, including lonely glaciers nearby their more popular retreating
neighbors. If retreating glaciers were proof of global warming, then
advancing glaciers are evidence of global cooling. They cannot both be
true, and in fact, neither is. Also, retreat often seems to be
unrelated to warming. For example, the snow cap on Mount Kilimanjaro
is receding -- despite decades of cooling in Kenya -- due to regional
land use and atmospheric moisture.
3. Climate was stable until man came along.
Swallowing this whopper requires burning every basic history and
science text, just as "witches" were burned in retaliation for
changing climates in ages (we had thought) long past. The "hockey
stick" chart -- poster child for this concept -- has been disgraced
and airbrushed from the UN's alarmist repertoire.
2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.
Al Gore shows his audience a slide of CO2 concentrations, and a slide
of historical temperatures. But for very good reason he does not
combine them in one overlaid slide: Historically, atmospheric CO2, as
often as not, increases after warming. This is typical in the campaign
of claiming "consensus" to avoid debate (consensus about what being
left unspoken or distorted).
What scientists do agree on is little and says nothing about man-made
global warming, to wit: (1) that global average temperature is
probably about 0.6 degree Celsius -- or 1 degree Fahrenheit -- higher
than a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have
risen by about 30% over the past 200 years; and (3) that CO2 is one
greenhouse gas, some level of an increase of which presumably would
warm the Earth's atmosphere were all else equal, which it demonstrably
is not.
Until scientists are willing to save the U.S. taxpayer more than $5
billion per year thrown at researching climate, it is fair to presume
the science is not settled.
1. It's hot in here!
In fact, "It's the baseline, stupid." Claiming that present
temperatures are warm requires a starting point at, say, the 1970s, or
around the Little Ice Age (approximately 1200 A.D to the end of the
19th Century), or thousands of years ago. Select many other baselines,
for example, compared o the 1930s, or 1000 A.D. -- or 1998 -- and it
is presently cool. Cooling does paint a far more frightening picture,
given that another ice age would be truly catastrophic, while
throughout history, warming periods have always ushered in prosperity.
Maybe that's why the greens tried "global cooling" first.
The claim that the 1990s were the hottest decade on record
specifically targets the intellectually lazy and easily frightened,
ignoring numerous obvious factors. "On record" obviously means a very
short period, typically the past 100+ years, or since the end of the
Little Ice Age. The National Academies of Science debunked this claim
in 2006. Previously rural measuring stations register warmer temps
after decades of "sprawl" (growth), cement being warmer than a
pasture.
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
".it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of
those who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and
becoming the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same
fundamental philosophy in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war
on the freedom and well-being of the individual." Dr. George Reisman's
book Capitalism

Reader Comments:
Here are a few of the comments submitted by our readers.

Compiled by Christopher Horner, author of "The Politically Incorrect
Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism"

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19468

10. The U.S. is going it alone on Kyoto and global warming.

Nonsense. The U.S. rejects the Kyoto Protocol's energy-rationing scheme,
along with 155 other countries, representing most of the world's
population, economic activity and projected future growth.

Kyoto is a
European treaty with one dozen others, none of whom is in fact presently
reducing its emissions. Similarly, claims that Bush refused to sign
Kyoto, and/or he withdrew, not only are mutually exclusive but also
false. We signed it, Nov. 11, 1998. The Senate won't vote on it. Ergo,
the (Democratic) Senate is blocking Kyoto. Gosh.

Don't demand they behave otherwise, however. Since Kyoto was agreed,
Europe's CO2 emissions are rising twice as fast as those of the
climate-criminal United States, a gap that is widening in more recent
years. So we should jump on a sinking ship?

Given Al Gore's proclivity for invoking Winston Churchill in this drama,
it is only appropriate to summarize his claims as such: Never in the
field of political conflict has so much been asked by so few of so many
... for so little.

9. Global-warming proposals are about the environment.

Only if this means that they would make things worse, given that
"wealthier is healthier and cleaner." Even accepting every underlying
economic and alarmist environmentalist assumption, no one dares say that
the expensive Kyoto Protocol would detectably affect climate.

Imagine
how expensive a pact must be -- in both financial and human costs -- to
so severely ration energy use as the greens demand. Instead, proponents
candidly admit desires to control others' lifestyles, and supportive
industries all hope to make millions off the deal. Europe's former
environment commissioner admitted that Kyoto is "about leveling the
playing field for big businesses worldwide" (in other words, bailing
them out).

8. Climate change is the greatest threat to the world's poor.

Climate -- or more accurately, weather -- remains one of the greatest
challenges facing the poor. Climate change adds nothing to that
calculus, however.

Climate and weather patterns have always changed, as
they always will. Man has always best dealt with this through wealth
creation and technological advance -- a.k.a. adaptation -- and most
poorly through superstitious casting of blame, such as burning
"witches." The wealthiest societies have always adapted best. One would
prefer to face a similar storm in Florida than Bangladesh. Institutions,
infrastructure and affordable energy are key to dealing with an
ever-changing climate, not rationing energy.

7. Global warming means more frequent, more severe storms.

Here again the alarmists cannot even turn to the wildly distorted and
politicized "Summary for Policy Makers" of the UN's IPCC to support this
favorite chestnut of the press.

6. Global warming has doomed the polar bears!

For some reason, Al Gore's computerized polar bear can't swim, unlike
the real kind, as one might expect of an animal named Ursa Maritimus. On
the whole, these bears are thriving, if a little less well in those
areas of the Arctic that are cooling (yes, cooling).

Their biggest
threat seems to be computer models that air-brush them from the future,
the same models that tell us it is much warmer now than it is. As usual
in this context, you must answer the question: Who are you going to
believe -- me or your lying eyes?

5. Climate change is raising the sea levels.

Sea levels rise during interglacial periods such as that in which we
(happily) find ourselves. Even the distorted United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports refute the hysteria,
finding no statistically significant change in the rate of increase over
the past century of man's greatest influence, despite green claims of
massive melting already occurring.

Small island nations seeking welfare
and asylum for their citizens such as in socially generous New Zealand
and Australia have no sea-level rise at all and in some cases see
instead a drop. These societies' real problem is typically that they
have made a mess of their own situation. One archipelago nation is even
spending lavishly to lobby the European Union for development money to
build beachfront hotel resorts, at the same time it shrieks about a
watery and imminent grave. So, which time are they lying?

4. The glaciers are melting!

As good fortune has it, frozen things do in fact melt or at least recede
after cooling periods mercifully end. The glacial retreat we read about
is selective, however. Glaciers are also advancing all over,

including
lonely glaciers nearby their more popular retreating neighbors. If
retreating glaciers were proof of global warming, then advancing
glaciers are evidence of global cooling. They cannot both be true, and
in fact, neither is. Also, retreat often seems to be unrelated to
warming. For example, the snow cap on Mount Kilimanjaro is receding --
despite decades of cooling in Kenya -- due to regional land use and
atmospheric moisture.

3. Climate was stable until man came along.

Swallowing this whopper requires burning every basic history and science
text, just as "witches" were burned in retaliation for changing climates
in ages (we had thought) long past. The "hockey stick" chart -- poster
child for this concept -- has been disgraced and airbrushed from the UN's
alarmist repertoire.

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.

Al Gore shows his audience a slide of CO2 concentrations, and a slide of
historical temperatures. But for very good reason he does not combine
them in one overlaid slide: Historically, atmospheric CO2, as often as
not, increases after warming. This is typical in the campaign of
claiming "consensus" to avoid debate (consensus about what being left
unspoken or distorted).

What scientists do agree on is little and says nothing about man-made
global warming, to wit: (1) that global average temperature is probably
about 0.6 degree Celsius -- or 1 degree Fahrenheit -- higher than a
century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen by
about 30% over the past 200 years; and (3) that CO2 is one greenhouse
gas, some level of an increase of which presumably would warm the Earth's
atmosphere were all else equal, which it demonstrably is not.

Until scientists are willing to save the U.S. taxpayer more than $5
billion per year thrown at researching climate, it is fair to presume
the science is not settled.

1. It's hot in here!

In fact, "It's the baseline, stupid." Claiming that present temperatures
are warm requires a starting point at, say, the 1970s, or around the
Little Ice Age (approximately 1200 A.D to the end of the 19th Century),
or thousands of years ago.

Select many other baselines, for example,
compared o the 1930s, or 1000 A.D. -- or 1998 -- and it is presently
cool. Cooling does paint a far more frightening picture, given that
another ice age would be truly catastrophic, while throughout history,
warming periods have always ushered in prosperity. Maybe that's why the
greens tried "global cooling" first.

The claim that the 1990s were the hottest decade on record specifically
targets the intellectually lazy and easily frightened, ignoring numerous
obvious factors. "On record" obviously means a very short period,
typically the past 100+ years, or since the end of the Little Ice Age.
The National Academies of Science debunked this claim in 2006.

Previously rural measuring stations register warmer temps after decades
of "sprawl" (growth), cement being warmer than a pasture.

--

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

".it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of those
who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and becoming
the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same fundamental
philosophy in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war on the
freedom and well-being of the individual." Dr. George Reisman's book
Capitalism

"0NBZ0" <0N...@doooooooooooooooodoooooooooo.com> wrote in message

news:480bf72a@dnews.tpgi.com.au...



Compiled by Christopher Horner, author of "The Politically Incorrect
Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism"
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19468
10. The U.S. is going it alone on Kyoto and global warming.
Nonsense. The U.S. rejects the Kyoto Protocol's energy-rationing
scheme, along with 155 other countries, representing most of the
world's population, economic activity and projected future growth.
Kyoto is a European treaty with one dozen others, none of whom is in
fact presently reducing its emissions. Similarly, claims that Bush
refused to sign Kyoto, and/or he withdrew, not only are mutually
exclusive but also false. We signed it, Nov. 11, 1998. The Senate
won't vote on it. Ergo, the (Democratic) Senate is blocking Kyoto.
Gosh.
Don't demand they behave otherwise, however. Since Kyoto was agreed,
Europe's CO2 emissions are rising twice as fast as those of the
climate-criminal United States, a gap that is widening in more recent
years. So we should jump on a sinking ship?
Given Al Gore's proclivity for invoking Winston Churchill in this
drama, it is only appropriate to summarize his claims as such: Never
in the field of political conflict has so much been asked by so few of
so many ... for so little.
9. Global-warming proposals are about the environment.
Only if this means that they would make things worse, given that
"wealthier is healthier and cleaner." Even accepting every underlying
economic and alarmist environmentalist assumption, no one dares say
that the expensive Kyoto Protocol would detectably affect climate.
Imagine how expensive a pact must be -- in both financial and human
costs -- to so severely ration energy use as the greens demand.
Instead, proponents candidly admit desires to control others'
lifestyles, and supportive industries all hope to make millions off
the deal. Europe's former environment commissioner admitted that Kyoto
is "about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide" (in
other words, bailing them out).
8. Climate change is the greatest threat to the world's poor.
Climate -- or more accurately, weather -- remains one of the greatest
challenges facing the poor. Climate change adds nothing to that
calculus, however. Climate and weather patterns have always changed,
as they always will. Man has always best dealt with this through
wealth creation and technological advance -- a.k.a. adaptation -- and
most poorly through superstitious casting of blame, such as burning
"witches." The wealthiest societies have always adapted best. One
would prefer to face a similar storm in Florida than Bangladesh.
Institutions, infrastructure and affordable energy are key to dealing
with an ever-changing climate, not rationing energy.
7. Global warming means more frequent, more severe storms.
Here again the alarmists cannot even turn to the wildly distorted and
politicized "Summary for Policy Makers" of the UN's IPCC to support
this favorite chestnut of the press.
6. Global warming has doomed the polar bears!
For some reason, Al Gore's computerized polar bear can't swim, unlike
the real kind, as one might expect of an animal named Ursa Maritimus.
On the whole, these bears are thriving, if a little less well in those
areas of the Arctic that are cooling (yes, cooling). Their biggest
threat seems to be computer models that air-brush them from the
future, the same models that tell us it is much warmer now than it is.
As usual in this context, you must answer the question: Who are you
going to believe -- me or your lying eyes?
5. Climate change is raising the sea levels.
Sea levels rise during interglacial periods such as that in which we
(happily) find ourselves. Even the distorted United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports refute the hysteria,
finding no statistically significant change in the rate of increase
over the past century of man's greatest influence, despite green
claims of massive melting already occurring. Small island nations
seeking welfare and asylum for their citizens such as in socially
generous New Zealand and Australia have no sea-level rise at all and
in some cases see instead a drop. These societies' real problem is
typically that they have made a mess of their own situation. One
archipelago nation is even spending lavishly to lobby the European
Union for development money to build beachfront hotel resorts, at the
same time it shrieks about a watery and imminent grave. So, which time
are they lying?
4. The glaciers are melting!
As good fortune has it, frozen things do in fact melt or at least
recede after cooling periods mercifully end. The glacial retreat we
read about is selective, however. Glaciers are also advancing all
over, including lonely glaciers nearby their more popular retreating
neighbors. If retreating glaciers were proof of global warming, then
advancing glaciers are evidence of global cooling. They cannot both be
true, and in fact, neither is. Also, retreat often seems to be
unrelated to warming. For example, the snow cap on Mount Kilimanjaro
is receding -- despite decades of cooling in Kenya -- due to regional
land use and atmospheric moisture.
3. Climate was stable until man came along.
Swallowing this whopper requires burning every basic history and
science text, just as "witches" were burned in retaliation for
changing climates in ages (we had thought) long past. The "hockey
stick" chart -- poster child for this concept -- has been disgraced
and airbrushed from the UN's alarmist repertoire.
2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.
Al Gore shows his audience a slide of CO2 concentrations, and a slide
of historical temperatures. But for very good reason he does not
combine them in one overlaid slide: Historically, atmospheric CO2, as
often as not, increases after warming. This is typical in the campaign
of claiming "consensus" to avoid debate (consensus about what being
left unspoken or distorted).
What scientists do agree on is little and says nothing about man-made
global warming, to wit: (1) that global average temperature is
probably about 0.6 degree Celsius -- or 1 degree Fahrenheit -- higher
than a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have
risen by about 30% over the past 200 years; and (3) that CO2 is one
greenhouse gas, some level of an increase of which presumably would
warm the Earth's atmosphere were all else equal, which it demonstrably
is not.
Until scientists are willing to save the U.S. taxpayer more than $5
billion per year thrown at researching climate, it is fair to presume
the science is not settled.
1. It's hot in here!
In fact, "It's the baseline, stupid." Claiming that present
temperatures are warm requires a starting point at, say, the 1970s, or
around the Little Ice Age (approximately 1200 A.D to the end of the
19th Century), or thousands of years ago. Select many other baselines,
for example, compared o the 1930s, or 1000 A.D. -- or 1998 -- and it
is presently cool. Cooling does paint a far more frightening picture,
given that another ice age would be truly catastrophic, while
throughout history, warming periods have always ushered in prosperity.
Maybe that's why the greens tried "global cooling" first.
The claim that the 1990s were the hottest decade on record
specifically targets the intellectually lazy and easily frightened,
ignoring numerous obvious factors. "On record" obviously means a very
short period, typically the past 100+ years, or since the end of the
Little Ice Age. The National Academies of Science debunked this claim
in 2006. Previously rural measuring stations register warmer temps
after decades of "sprawl" (growth), cement being warmer than a
pasture.
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
".it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of
those who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and
becoming the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same
fundamental philosophy in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war
on the freedom and well-being of the individual." Dr. George Reisman's
book Capitalism

Reader Comments:

Here are a few of the comments submitted by our readers.

Awesome. Can we spread this common sense in the mass media somehow? Why
are all of the 'Big' TV networks on the 'tard bandwagon?

Jimmer, Mass.Jul 05, 2007 @ 09:25 PM

Global warming hysteria is brought to you by the same people who accuse
the Bush administration of fear-mongering the War on Terror.

Marty, Ft BenningJul 11, 2007 @ 04:38 PM

Famous AlGoreisms:

1) Invented the internet

3) Invented global warming

4) Became spokesmodel for Jenny Craig

Jay Crouch, Mount Dora, FloridaJul 12, 2007 @ 10:54 AM

There IS an Al Gore correlation to Global Warming in Australia (as noted
by Tim Blair in The Bulletin).

Every time Gore goes out and gives a speech on Global Warming or holds a
viewing of An Inconvenient Truth (anywhere in the world), Australia
suffers through near-record-low temperatures. This has been recorded
since 1995.

Recently, when he appeared via Big-Screen at Live Earth here, we in the
West recorded our FIRST EVER night below freezing!

GOOD ON YA, Big Al!

YOU KILLED MY MANGO TREE!!!

aussieg1rl, Western AustraliaJul 14, 2007 @ 09:07 AM

The problem is that environmentalists are leftists and the environmetal
movement is politically driven, so politicians from either the left or
the right have to jump on the global warming bandwagon due to fear of
getting left behind.

The advancement of the Left and it's ...

read more »

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.

This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and in fact
all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2 supposed to damage our
atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the beginning of history?

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.


This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and in fact

V-for-Vendicar wrote:
"0NBZ0" <0NBZ0@doooooooooooooooodoooooooooo.com> wrote
Reader Comments:
Here are a few of the comments submitted by our readers.

Here are some comments from some Climatologists


Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

(06-27) 18:15 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --


The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient
Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for
accuracy. The former vice president's movie - replete with the prospect
of a
flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier
hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing
ice sheets - mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate
scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered
questions from The Associated Press. The AP contacted more than 100 top
climate researchers by e-mail and
phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics
of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie,
which is in limited release, or read the book.


But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore
conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it
is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of
fossil fuels. "Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas
School of
Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the
important material and got it right."


Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact
Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the
slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.


"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell
said. "After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown
away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could
find no error." Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't
surprised "because
I took a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right."


The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer
and less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical
politician explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used
to be in charge of the nation's global warming effects program and
is now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington.


One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global
warming. That is a subject of a heated debate in the science
community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his
view. "I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was
inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of
disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is
much greater scientific consensus," said Brian Soden, a University
of Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography.


Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the
effect of the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core;
it is the Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the
causal-link between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising
temperatures. While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire
disaster-laden warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top
researcher thought it was too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior
scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought
the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that
with already-available technologies and changes in habit - such as
changing light bulbs - the world could help slow or stop global
warming. While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it
opened
in May, that does not include Washington's top science decision
makers. President Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the
Environmental Protection Agency and NASA haven't seen it, and the
president's science adviser said the movie is on his to-see list.


"They are quite literally afraid to know the truth," Gore said.
"Because if you accept the truth of what the scientific community is
saying, it gives you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70
million tons of global warming pollution that human civilization is
putting into the atmosphere every day."


As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution
geosciences professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell
asleep. Of course, I was on the edge of my chair."


This is not science it's a religious crusade with no basis in fact.

V-for-Vendicar wrote:

"0NBZ0" <0NBZ0@doooooooooooooooodoooooooooo.com> wrote

Reader Comments:
Here are a few of the comments submitted by our readers.


Here are some comments from some Climatologists


Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

(06-27) 18:15 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient
Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.


The former vice president's movie - replete with the prospect of a
flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier
hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing
ice sheets - mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate
scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered
questions from The Associated Press.


The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and
phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of
climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which
is in limited release, or read the book.


But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore
conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is
a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil
fuels.


"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of
Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the
important material and got it right."


Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact
Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the
slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.


"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell
said. "After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away.
There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no
error."


Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I
took a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right."


The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer
and less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical
politician explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to
be in charge of the nation's global warming effects program and is now
chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington.


One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global
warming. That is a subject of a heated debate in the science
community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view.


"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate
and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing
impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater
scientific consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami
professor of meteorology and oceanography.


Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the
effect of the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core;
it is the Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the
causal-link between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising
temperatures.


While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden
warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought
it was too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National
Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president
sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available
technologies and changes in habit - such as changing light bulbs - the
world could help slow or stop global warming.


While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened
in May, that does not include Washington's top science decision
makers. President Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the
Environmental Protection Agency and NASA haven't seen it, and the
president's science adviser said the movie is on his to-see list.


"They are quite literally afraid to know the truth," Gore said.
"Because if you accept the truth of what the scientific community is
saying, it gives you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70
million tons of global warming pollution that human civilization is
putting into the atmosphere every day."


As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution
geosciences professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell
asleep. Of course, I was on the edge of my chair."

This is not science it's a religious crusade with no basis in fact. Even
his videos were Hollywood special effects productions.

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.


This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and in fact
all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2 supposed to damage our
atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the beginning of history?

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message

news:674ckaF2mlt5vU1@mid.individual.net...



"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:480c6fb2$0$18474$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.

This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and in
fact all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2 supposed to
damage our atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the beginning of
history?

**Have you been living under a rock? Or are you really THAT stupid? CO2
levels are rising faster than at any time in history. The last time CO2
levels were higher than they are now (more than 400,000 years ago) there
was a mass extinction. Wanna speculate as to what will happen WHEN CO2
levels rise further? Do you know what mass extinction means?

Sheesh!

Trevor Wilson

I don't speculate any more. Speculation can result in Bush carried out 911
or something. I prefer to rely on facts and the facts are 400,000 years ago
there was no oil companies or whatnot. How did the CO2 levels get so high
without pollution? Could it be possible the CO2 levels are high because of
similar reasons?

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.


This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and in
fact all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2 supposed to damage
our atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the beginning of history?

"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:480c6fb2$0$18474$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...



2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.

This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and in
fact all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2 supposed to damage
our atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the beginning of history?

**Have you been living under a rock? Or are you really THAT stupid? CO2
levels are rising faster than at any time in history. The last time CO2
levels were higher than they are now (more than 400,000 years ago) there was
a mass extinction.

Wanna speculate as to what will happen WHEN CO2 levels
rise further? Do you know what mass extinction means?

Sheesh!

Trevor Wilson

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:41:54 +1000, "Seon Ferguson" <seongf@gmail.com
wrote:


2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.


This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and in
fact
all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2 supposed to damage our
atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the beginning of history?

You're (not your) stupid.

Because... there is *so* much more of it being produced now than at any
time
since the beginning of history. Until about 150 odd years ago there were
no
cars, trucks, buses, coal fired power plants, ships used the wind not oil
or
coal... The list goes on.

How can you compare the previous history of the world with the past 150
years?

Amazing.

But if we produce CO2 how can CO2 be bad for the atmosphere? CO2 is just

"Seon Ferguson" <seongf@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:480c6fb2$0$18474$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.


This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and in
fact all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2 supposed to
damage our atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the beginning of
history?

**Have you been living under a rock? Or are you really THAT stupid? CO2
levels are rising faster than at any time in history. The last time CO2
levels were higher than they are now (more than 400,000 years ago) there
was a mass extinction. Wanna speculate as to what will happen WHEN CO2
levels rise further? Do you know what mass extinction means?

Sheesh!

Trevor Wilson

I don't speculate any more. Speculation can result in Bush carried out 911