Thanks for this post!

Good post. I am looking into these issues on my blog.

This sure as heck beats reading Playboy in the dark wth a flashlight.

Basically, Al Gore and his ilk are exaggerating and misleading about the science. That’s basically all you need to know. The rest of the scientists are not on board with their Al Gore ‘08 gravy train, so they just keep mum about the whole thing. Then you have the “skeptics” who think human-made global warming is a bunch of crock. The Al Gore club loves pretending they don’t exist and that they are all oil-company stooges, which they aren’t. As you can see, there’s one side doing a lot more lying about the issue than the other, conveniently the same side that has a movie out, and the one getting quoted in the media.

Makes you wonder.

I assume that a study may be not biased if the author/s aren’t payed directly by someone interested in demonstrate a thing who benefits that someone. Example: the (few) “scientifics” payed by the Oil Industry to write articles against Global Warming. I assume they are biased, because are payed by a company not interested in Global Warming being true, because, if not contended (even with lies), they will lose a great share of income.

Also, look at the signature of the writer: if it says only “MBA” or anything alike, maybe he doesn’t know enough of science to be a trustable source. But if you see MIT, Harvard, Nobel Prize, etc in the signature, specially in areas related to climatology…

And if you see someone signing as metheorologist, but he has no works published in the late 30 years…

Even not knowing science, Internet makes too easy to check the truth.

However it only serves to further muddy the water for me. There’s two extremes at work here, in regards to global warming. One extreme paints a bleak picture, and the other extreme is in total denial. Closer to the middle, one side lists scientists who affirm the man-caused reasons for global warming, repleat with charts, graphs, and scientific data—while the other side lists scientists who deny the man-caused reasons for global warming, repleat with charts, graphs, and scientific data. Both sides claim that the other is wrong. Both sides attack the messengers of the other. So who do you believe? I’m not a scientist. all the charts, graphs, and scientific data in the world do nothing to persuade me to believe one way or the other. Besides, I wouldn’t know correct data from incorrect data. It seems to me that the actual science has been swallowed up in politics, and it’s become impossible to get unbiased imformation.

This article was written by PR flacks. Tim Lambert has the rundown:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/an_embarrassment_to_australian.php

The frighteningly frantic Al Gore can be seen

Jetting around the world painting it green.

The fossil fuels used to carry this guru

Might kill a rain forest, if his words were really true.

Of this teller of tales, this dreamer of fantasy,

One might ask the question, “But why on earth can’t he see

The world of serious historic climatology?”.

Science requires nothing less from him than apology.

To seize on a topic and make it one’s own

In order to ascend a political throne,

Is nothing new. It has been used before,

Even by the insatiable Mr. Gore.

But now as he seeks support far and wide,

One has to admit there might be another side.

Many a researcher and history buff,

With educated background, has had enough

Of this worn out, used up discredited theory

And has with this blathering grown ever more weary.

The time has gone, the time is wrong

To use this to frighten a gullible throng.

Hanging onto something that can be discredited

Hasn’t the substantial clout he once bet it did.

Mimi Evans Winship 6 27 06

Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:

“Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”

“The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.” – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:

“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore’s approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” – Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal

Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

“…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.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930’s…before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don’t you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.

Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.

“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,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.

The Associated Press attempts to whitewash Al Gore’s movie. Don’t be fooled. Read what the scientists actually have to say, not what the Associated Press wants you to think….

AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE
June 27, 2006
The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, Correll’s reported links as an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm

The AP also chose to ignore Gore’s reliance on the now-discredited “hockey stick” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last week’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled Mann’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. See Senator Inhofe’s statement on the broken “Hockey Stick.”

Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.

Here is a sampling of the views of some of the scientific critics of Gore:

Professor Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, on Gore’s film:

“Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”

“The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.” – Bob Carter as quoted in the Canadian Free Press, June 12, 2006

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, wrote:

“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore’s approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” – Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal

Gore’s film also cites a review of scientific literature by the journal Science which claimed 100% consensus on global warming, but Lindzen pointed out the study was flat out incorrect.

“…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.”- Lindzen wrote in an op-ed in the June 26, 2006 Wall Street Journal.

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film:

“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930’s…before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don’t you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.

Former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball reacted to Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970.

“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,” –Tim Ball said, according to the Canadian Free Press.

Norway Bob, There you go again. If I was trying to find the exact right spot to build my house incase ALL the ice sheets melt then 3ft 20ft or more would be real important I would want to know the exact elavation. Your one twisted dude.

Like you haven’t googled everyone of us by now, George. These are the names I use online: Zookeeper & Luna. Knock yourself out, boyo.

What does my past have to do with anything being discussed here? Oh, nothing. Why was it brought up? Because people at this site are dishonest and smear-mongering filth who seek to intimidate rather than debate.

I don’t seek to escape my past, there’s nothing there haunting me, but I would appreciate to have my privacy along with everyone else here. I don’t see why I shouldn’t be able to have my privacy while everyone else is allowed to have theirs.