Reply With Quote
Spoken like a true follower of the regressive Dimm-o-crap you are. And
worshiper of Al the Gore.
If Global Warming is indeed the by-product of human-induced greenhouse gasses that if ignored would result in catastrophic global events then obviously we should take the necessary actions to remedy the problem. The question is whether the problem truly exists.
Jack Kelly exposes Al Gore in an editoral column taken from the Toledo Blade.
‘The sky is warming!’
THEIR efforts to politicize science are at once the most amusing and most alarming trait of liberals.
On June 6, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report on climate change. It “represented a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man,” said CNN reporter Mic e Mitc . “There is no wiggle room.”
Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT and one of the 11 scientists who prepared the report, said this wasn’t true:
“We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries, and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth.
“But — and I cannot stress this enough — we are not in a position to attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future,” he wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Monday.
“The nation’s top climate scientists are giving An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore’s do entary on global warming, five stars for accuracy,” said the Associated Press June 27.
That story was so inaccurate the majority on the Senate Environment and Public Works committee issued a statement rebutting it. A brief Google search would have shown the AP reporter, Seth Borenstein, that many leading environmental scientists think Mr. Gore’s claims are preposterous.
“A general characteristic of Mr. Gore’s approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic,” wrote Dr. Lindzen, considered by many to be America’s leading climatologist. “To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.”
Prof. Paul Reiter of the Ins ut Pasteur in Paris described the movie as “pure, mind-bending propaganda.”
“Gore’s cir stantial arguments are so weak they are pathetic,” said Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia.
Mr. Gore blames the recent increase in hurricanes on global warming. But Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, says that warming has nothing to do with it. Tad Murty of the University of Ottawa noted that in the other six ocean basins worldwide, hurricane activity is flat or declining. Dr. Murty said also that hurricane activity in the U.S. southeast was greater in the first half of the 20th century than it is now.
The ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica are growing, not melting as Mr. Gore claims, say Dr. Carter and M.R. Morgan of the University of Exeter in Britain. (Mr. Gore mentions melting on the coasts, but ignores the much larger buildup of ice in the interior.)
The Canadian Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than it is today, said Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville. The polar bear population is stable or growing, not declining as Mr. Gore claims, said Mitc Taylor of Canada’s Department of the Environment.
The ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa is melting not because of global warming, as Mr. Gore claims, but because of a decline in the moisture in the atmosphere there, said the Royal Meteorological Society in a 2004 article.
“None of the 30 so-called new diseases Gore references are attributable to global warming, none,” said Dr. Reiter.
Sea levels aren’t rising, as Mr. Gore claims, say Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland in New Zealand, and Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University in Sweden.
Mr. Gore claims the planet is warmer now than it has been for 2,000 years. The National Academy of Scientists doesn’t agree.
The NAS did say it is warmer now than it’s been in 400 years, but that’s like saying it’s warmer in June than it was in February.
It was cooler 400 years ago because that was during the Little Ice Age. The Little Ice Age didn’t end until around 1850, so it should be small wonder it’s warmer now than it was then.
The Little Ice Age was preceded by the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 900 A.D. — 1400 A.D.), when temperatures in Europe and North America were higher than they are today.
Things were more pleasant for people during the Medieval Warm Period than they are today. Greenland was actually green. Viking colonists grew crops and grazed livestock there.
A return to the climate of the Medieval Warm Period would do us more good than harm, so one wonders why Al Gore is running around like Chicken Little, screaming: “The sky is warming. The sky is warming. Give me all your money!”
Maybe the last sentence is a clue to the point of the exercise.
Jack Kelly is a member of The Blade’s national bureau.
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll...IST14/60701017
Spoken like a true follower of the regressive Dimm-o-crap you are. And
worshiper of Al the Gore.
Actually elpimpo he's not as Mr. Kelly is merely citing arguements from the scientific community.
Everyone knows the smartest people in the world write for the Toledo Blade.
I think the smartest people in the world are the ones that can stumble over an article from the Toledo Blade.
Typical goofball off topic post by you clams attacking the messenger that you know nothing about because you have nothing to offer in the way of substance regarding those cited as contributors to the message.
For what it's worth Kelly also writes for the Pittsburg Post-Gazette (ever hear of Pittsburg?)
And no stumbling for articles here, I live in a suburb of Toledo and the paper's delivered to my house each morning.
Yup, you got me! No such thing as global warning, certainly not by humans, right Jam?
Toledo and Pittsburg would never harbour a red opinion.
Pantomime, how nice SA.
That's a sure-fire way of avoiding having your posts systematically dismantled (although normally you don't even offer enough to warrant dismantling). Good move.
Again, not surprisingly, you offer nothing to refute the article and I wasn't aware that the article mentioned where the scientists were from.
Fact is Gore is a politician (blue opinion to use your lingo) and the scientists are...well, scientists.
Good Article joch. I still haven't made up my mind because I haven't researched the facts. But doesn't surprise me Al Gore's movie is propaganda.
The scientists mentioned in the article are well know skeptics of global warming, a small but vocal group. Of course the writer would not cite anything from established scientists who accept that global warming is occuring and that human activity plays a key role in it's development. That would go against his opinion on the matter.
What do you know about Jack Kelly that would cause you to isinuate that he's biased in his article? And "small group" means that their observations and arguements don't pass muster?
And of course you have proof that only a "small" group of scientists believe this and that they themselves are not "established scientists".
Those you disagree with are "skeptical scientists" and those you agree with are "established scientists". I see...
They did produce actual arguements against global warming, feel free to actually attack them...anyone. sheesh!
Last edited by jochhejaam; 07-01-2006 at 05:40 PM.
I am not saying he is biased, just that it is an Op-Ed piece. Why should Jack Kelly tell both sides of the story?
As for the skeptics, fair enough, there are always skeptics. Let's look at a few of the scientists mentioned in Mr Kelly's piece.
Richard Lindzen - One of his speeches, 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' (1995) was underwritten by OPEC.
Bob Carter - He's a contributing writer to Tech Central Station (TCS), ExxonMobil gave TCS nearly $100,000.00 in 2003 for "Climate Change Support."
Roy Spencer - Another contributor to TCS.
For scientists who support human activity caused global warming, try the US Government:
US EPA
NCAR
From the National Center for Atmospheric Research (an organization spnsored by the National Science Foundation, NOAA, NASA, DOD, DOE, FAA, EPA)
Why should Earth be warming? The amount of energy emitted by the Sun has risen a fraction of a percent since 1900. However, climate simulations at NCAR have shown that solar changes explain less than a third of the warm-up during the last century. The most likely explanation for a warming Earth is the greenhouse gases emitted when fossil fuels are burned in homes, gas and coal-fired power plants, vehicles, and factories.
Last edited by Burly_Man; 07-01-2006 at 06:09 PM.
nbadan with wikepedia hockeypuck model in 3... 2... 1...
Jaam, this is goofball. Please let me hear you complain about the media while you simultainiously paste some red state blabbering article that declares our administration God's gift to america.
When you can do those 2 things at exactly the same moment, I'll give you props.
Until then, everyone should back off leaning articles "hooray for our side" bull .
We don't need an article to know this white house is full of .
Oh, What was that, Mr. "Christian" sir?
Mr. Supporter of Lies, War, and Killing of innocent civilians and US troops to further you're political agenda?
You dismantled yourself.
[QUOTE]Richard Lindzen, as noted in the artilce, is considered by many to be America’s leading climatologist. Should we prefer that they underwrite someone who is not considered a leading climatologist? Should we conclude that since "one" of Lindzen's speeches was underwritten by OPEC that America's leading climatologist is to be viewed skeptically? If so, why?
Is this supposed to pass as proof that their opinions are without merit? Most would prefer arguements refuting the substance of what they said as opposed to insinuating that they may be without merit because of the contributions. That's avoiding the real issue by attempting to cast doubts on their character instead of presenting meaningful arguements. And btw, M.R. Morgan of the University of Exeter in Britain was in agreement with Mr. Carter in stating that "the ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica are growing, not melting". Nothing negative on Morgan?Bob Carter - He's a contributing writer to Tech Central Station (TCS), ExxonMobil gave TCS nearly $100,000.00 in 2003 for "Climate Change Support."
Roy Spencer - Another contributor to TCS.
And no "dirt" on Prof. Paul Reiter of the Ins ute Pasteur in Paris who described the movie as “pure, mind-bending propaganda.” and flat out stated that “None of the 30 so-called new diseases Gore references are attributable to global warming, none,”?
How about Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland in New Zealand, and Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University in Sweden who refuted Gore's contention that sea levels are rising? What's their agenda?
I won't list all of those mentioned in the article that you didn't provide and "finds" on but their were more.
Burly Man, I'm open to proof one way or the other on the subject of Global Warming but you really didn't provide me with information that would cast anything approaching doubt on Mr. Kelly's article.
Lightweightfluffpostbye.Oh, What was that, Mr. "Christian" sir?
Mr. Supporter of Lies, War, and Killing of innocent civilians and US troops to further you're political agenda?
You dismantled yourself.
jochjchdhdchchhehehchchchchehdhajajajajajajaam
[QUOTE=jochhejaam]Richard Lindzen, as noted in the artilce, is considered by many to be America’s leading climatologist. Should we prefer that they underwrite someone who is not considered a leading climatologist? Should we conclude that since "one" of Lindzen's speeches was underwritten by OPEC that America's leading climatologist is to be viewed skeptically? If so, why?
Is this supposed to pass as proof that their opinions are without merit? Most would prefer arguements refuting the substance of what they said as opposed to insinuating that they may be without merit because of the contributions. That's avoiding the real issue by attempting to cast doubts on their character instead of presenting meaningful arguements. And btw, M.R. Morgan of the University of Exeter in Britain was in agreement with Mr. Carter in stating that "the ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica are growing, not melting". Nothing negative on Morgan?
And no "dirt" on Prof. Paul Reiter of the Ins ute Pasteur in Paris who described the movie as “pure, mind-bending propaganda.” and flat out stated that “None of the 30 so-called new diseases Gore references are attributable to global warming, none,”?
How about Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland in New Zealand, and Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University in Sweden who refuted Gore's contention that sea levels are rising? What's their agenda?
I won't list all of those mentioned in the article that you didn't provide and "finds" on but their were more.
Burly Man, I'm open to proof one way or the other on the subject of Global Warming but you really didn't provide me with information that would cast anything approaching doubt on Mr. Kelly's article.
It's good you did your homework. Did you read the articles from the EPA and NCAR? That's a good starting point.
The "debate" on global warming seems pretty stupid. It's all quotes from random scientists and graphs posted on message boards...
The main things that should be under consideration are peer-reviewed articles posted in major scientific journals, NOT unsubstantiated quotes from scientists x, y and z (who all seem to be employed in some capacity by one side or the other).
Yep. And look at the bright side, if global warming is indeed real, we will all be dead and buried by the time it becomes a serious problem.
just curious, does that phrase make you feel clever or something?
Al Gore is not a liar. He is too stupid to be one. He more than likely believes all
the crap he puts out as fact. Just like his dumb statements in the past. You know
like the inter-net. He rants, he doesn't speak. It is a trait of their party. Look at
Howard Dean. Now wouldn't you just love to have him as your Doctor......OMG.
you mean they interviewed skeptics to refute the science..sort of like using hush limpballs to give an objective opinion on democrats
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
