The Science of Gore's Nobel

[trickblue]

Link (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/hjenkins/?id=110010947)

The Science of Gore's Nobel
What if everyone believes in global warmism only because everyone believes in global warmism?

BY HOLMAN W. JENKINS JR.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

The Nobel Committee might as well have called it Al Gore's Inner Peace Prize, given the way it seems designed to help him disown his lifelong ambition to become president in favor of a higher calling, as savior of a planet.

The media will be tempted to blur the fact that his medal, which Mr. Gore will collect on Monday in Oslo, isn't for "science." In fact, a Nobel has never been awarded for the science of global warming. Even Svante Arrhenius, who first described the "greenhouse" effect, won his for something else in 1903. Yet now one has been awarded for promoting belief in manmade global warming as a crisis.

How this honor has befallen the former Veep could perhaps be explained by another Nobel, awarded in 2002 to Daniel Kahneman for work he and the late Amos Tversky did on "availability bias," roughly the human propensity to judge the validity of a proposition by how easily it comes to mind.

Their insight has been fruitful and multiplied: "Availability cascade" has been coined for the way a proposition can become irresistible simply by the media repeating it; "informational cascade" for the tendency to replace our beliefs with the crowd's beliefs; and "reputational cascade" for the rational incentive to do so.

Mr. Gore clearly understands the game he's playing, judging by his resort to such nondispositive arguments as: "The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona."

Here's exactly the problem that availability cascades pose: What if the heads being counted to certify an alleged "consensus" arrived at their positions by counting heads?

It may seem strange that scientists would participate in such a phenomenon. It shouldn't. Scientists are human; they do not wait for proof; many devote their professional lives to seeking evidence for hypotheses (especially well-funded hypotheses) they've chosen to believe.

Less surprising is the readiness of many prominent journalists to embrace the role of enforcer of an orthodoxy simply because it is the orthodoxy. For them, a consensus apparently suffices as proof of itself.

With politicians and lobbyists, of course, you are dealing with sophisticated people versed in the ways of public opinion whose very prosperity depends on positioning themselves via such cascades. Their reactions tend to be, for that reason, on a higher intellectual level.

Take John Dingell. He told an environmental publication last year that the "world . . . is great at having consensuses that are in great error." Yet he turned around a few months later and introduced a sweeping carbon tax bill, which would confront Congress more frontally than Congress cares to be confronted with a rational approach to climate change if Congress really believes human activity is responsible.

Mr. Dingell is no fool. Is he merely trying to embarrass those who offer fake cures for climate change at the expense of out-of-favor industries such as Mr. Dingell's beloved Detroit?

Take Vinod Khosla, a venture capitalist working with Kleiner Perkins, a firm Mr. Gore joined last month to promote alternative energy investments. Mr. Khosla told a recent Senate hearing: "One does not need to believe in climate change to support climate change legislation. . . . Many executives would prefer to deal with known legislation even if unwarranted."

Mr. Khosla is no fool either. His argument is that the cascade itself is a reason that politicians can gain comfort by getting aboard his agenda.

Now let's suppose a most improbable, rhapsodic lobbying success for Mr. Gore, Mr. Khosla and folks on their side of the table--say, a government mandate to replace half the gasoline consumed in the U.S. with a carbon-neutral alternative. This would represent a monumental, $400 billion-a-year business opportunity for the green energy lobby. The impact on global carbon emissions? Four percent--less than China's predicted emissions growth over the next three or four years.

Don't doubt that this is precisely the chasm that keeps Mr. Gore from running for president. He could neither win the office nor govern on the basis of imposing the kinds of costs supposedly necessary to deal with an impending "climate crisis." Yet his credibility would become laughable if he failed to insist on such costs. How much more practical, then, to cash in on the crowd-pleasing role of angry prophet, without having to take responsibility for policies that the public will eventually discover to be fraudulent.

Public opinion cascades are powerful but also fragile--liable to be overturned in an instant when new information comes along. The current age of global warming politics will certainly end with a whimper once a few consecutive years of cooling are recorded. Why should we expect such cooling? Because the forces that caused warming and cooling in the past, before the advent of industrial civilization, are still at work.

No, this wouldn't prove or disprove a human role in warming, only that climate is variable and subject to complicated influences. But it would also eliminate the large incentive for politicians to traffic in doom-laden predictions--because such predictions would no longer command media assent and would cease to function as levers to redistribute resources.

Mr. Gore would have to find a new job.

Mr. Jenkins is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. His column appears in the Journal on Wednesdays.

[ConcordCowboy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/An%20Inconvenient%20Truth%20for%20Kidz-thumb.JPGhttp://spaceformusic.com/symposium2000/images/nobelcoin.jpg

:toast:

[BrAinPaiNt]

I keep forgetting that Al and Bill are not running for President.

These guys STILL get too much attention for my taste.

[iceberg]

Gore climate film's nine 'errors'

Al Gore's film was sent to schools in England, Wales and Scotland
A High Court judge who ruled on whether climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, could be shown in schools said it contains nine scientific "errors".

Mr Justice Burton said the government could still send the film to schools - if accompanied by guidance giving the other side of the argument.

He was ruling on an attempt by a Kent school governor to ban the film from secondary schools.

The Oscar-winning film was made by former US Vice-President Al Gore.

Mr Justice Burton said he had no complaint about Gore's central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans. However, the judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus.

In his final verdict, the judge said the film could be shown as long as updated guidelines were followed.

These say teachers should point out controversial or disputed sections.

Without the guidance, updated after the case was launched, the government would have been breaking the law, the judge said.

The government has sent the film to all secondary schools in England, and the administrations in Wales and Scotland have done the same.

The film won two Oscars.

'Landmark victory'

Mr Justice Burton told London's High Court that distributing the film without the guidance to counter its "one-sided" views would breach education laws.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families was not under a duty to forbid the film, provided it was accompanied by the guidance, he said.

"I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act", he said.

The nine errors alleged by the judge included:

Mr Gore's assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said this was "distinctly alarmist" and it was common ground that if Greenland's ice melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia".

Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

Mr Gore's reference to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears had actually drowned "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."

The case was brought by school governor Stewart Dimmock, from Dover, a father of two, who is a member of the New Party.

His lawyers described the ruling as a "landmark victory".

Mr Dimmock said: "I am elated with today's result, but still disappointed that the film is able to be shown in schools.

"If it was not for the case brought by myself, our young people would still be being indoctrinated with this political spin."

The judge awarded Mr Dimmock two-thirds of his estimated legal costs of more than £200,000, against the government.

BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin said the ruling would be "embarrassing for Mr Gore" but would not affect the government, which said it was happy that the judge did not dismiss the film's mainstream argument.

But, he added, this controversy could encourage the public to think there was scientific doubt about the facts of climate change.

Children's Minister Kevin Brennan had earlier said: "It is important to be clear that the central arguments put forward in An Inconvenient Truth, that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences, are supported by the vast weight of scientific opinion.

"Nothing in the judge's comments today detract from that."

He had previously said the updated guidance made "it clearer for teachers as to the stated IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] position on a number of scientific points raised in the film".

Notes to teachers on the guidance, on the government's Teachernet website, say: "An Inconvenient Truth is a film that has had a big impact. Its aim is to make the science and the arguments about global warming and climate change and its effects accessible to all audiences. It also presents a powerful case in favour of one particular type of political response to climate change.

"However, in parts of the film, Gore presents evidence and arguments which do not accord with mainstream scientific opinion. This guidance points out, on a scene by scene basis, the areas where further input will be required from teaching staff. This guidance is designed to help teaching staff encourage their pupils to assess the validity and credibility of different information sources and explore different points of view so as to form their own opinions."

Shadow Environment Secretary Peter Ainsworth said: "This is further evidence of the Government being all over the place on climate change.

"Instead of grabbing the first thing they could think of and then shooting it out to schools, the Government should put together a proper, up to-date, education pack about climate change - based on current evidence."

[Cajuncowboy]

http://spaceformusic.com/symposium2000/images/nobelcoin.jpg = JOKE

[vta]

I don't know whether it refutes GW or not, but it's a very crafty article on the human condition. He's spot on with his contention that we have a consensus=right mentality in our society.

He's not the only one who's aware of it. That knowledge is put to great use to politicize and influence a population, beyond the surface ego that would cause most to say with a straight face that they are making their own decisions.

[trickblue]

I don't know whether it refutes GW or not, but it's a very crafty article on the human condition. He's spot on with his contention that we have a consensus=right mentality in our society.

He's not the only one who's aware of it. That knowledge is put to great use to politicize and influence a population, beyond the surface ego that would cause most to say with a straight face that they are making their own decisions.

That's the whole gist of the article although many will choose not to recognize a real scientist in order to further their agenda with the likes of algore...

[silverbear]

The Nobel Committee might as well have called it Al Gore's Inner Peace Prize, given the way it seems designed to help him disown his lifelong ambition to become president in favor of a higher calling, as savior of a planet.

No need to read any further, the author's agenda has been fully revealed... but Jenkins long ago established his credentials as a right wing apologist, which is of course why he writes for the WSJ's op-ed pages in the first place...

This was an attack piece, utterly devoid of anything resembling a fact... indeed, his entire attack revolves around "what if"...

[silverbear]

That's the whole gist of the article although many will choose not to recognize a real scientist in order to further their agenda with the likes of algore...

Uhhh, what "real scientist" are you referring to?? The article quotes (or directly refers to) Congressman John Dingell, venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, and two psychologists, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky... those are the ONLY principals mentioned in the piece...

No scientists with expertise in the field of global warming-- either supporters of the theory or critics of the theory, are cited...

Basically, the author is making a claim, which he never bothers to support with anything factual, that global warming is a widely spread hoax that has become accepted as fact because of the vast publicity it's received...

This has been the thesis advanced by the critics of global warming all along, nothing new is broached in this piece... and again, absolutely NOTHING was offered to support that OPINION...

That piece is utterly without substance... which seems to be the author's modus operandi, based on the articles by him I've read in the last hour or so-- long on attitude, short on fact...

[iceberg]

No need to read any further, the author's agenda has been fully revealed... but Jenkins long ago established his credentials as a right wing apologist, which is of course why he writes for the WSJ's op-ed pages in the first place...

This was an attack piece, utterly devoid of anything resembling a fact... indeed, his entire attack revolves around "what if"...

this is part of what gets frustrating on a board such as this, sb. NOT to attack or even sound like it, but when an article is refuted because of who wrote it - where do we get? we can't talk that maybe the person is right cause now we simply demean the person because we don't agree with the premise.

why did al gore lie in his "inconvient truth"? my understanding is he knows he lied but he felt the issue important enough to do so. even swap graphs around till he got the results *he* wanted vs. what was actual. if we know he lied and altered the evidence, how is anything he says at that point valid?

why are entire countries school systems allowed to see it ONLY WITH a 60 page disclaimer? in the movie he says polar bears are dying / drowning because they have to swim too far to get to ice. (not me). there are *no* instances of this happening except in alaska where they died because of a storm, not a lack of ice.

as for which scientist - i believe the guy who started it all later said "oops, i'm wrong" but it was too late. i'm sure trick will elaborate.

[iceberg]

long on attitude, short on fact...

sounds like gores movie description. : )

[silverbear]

this is part of what gets frustrating on a board such as this, sb. NOT to attack or even sound like it, but when an article is refuted because of who wrote it - where do we get? we can't talk that maybe the person is right cause now we simply demean the person because we don't agree with the premise.

As far as I'm concerned, it is entirely legitimate to bring up the body of an author's writing when critiquing an individual piece, and as I've said, if you read his other work, that stuff is straight out of the right wing handbook... this is especially true when the author starts his article off with a gratuitous cheap shot at Gore the way we saw in the opening paragraph that I quoted... this was an attack piece, period... as such, it really doesn't DESERVE a serious analysis...

I also pointed out that the article in question really didn't offer anything factual in rebuttal of Gore's work... instead, it talked about the work of two psychologists who basically formulated the thesis that if enough people say something, it begins to take on the ring of truth, whether it's true or not... while this is undeniably true, indeed it is the principle at the heart of all propaganda, nothing in that piece demonstrated that this was the case with the global warming issue... there was no linkage, but rather, as I stated earlier, a series of "what ifs"...

Excuse me if I don't find "what if" to be a compelling argument...

The vast majority of scientists seem to agree that global warming is quite real... and on the flip side, most of the scientists criticizing that theory seem to have strong ties to the energy industry, calling their impartiality into question...

I have seen all kinds of folks criticizing the theory of global warming, but have yet to see one of them address the issue in a manner that I find compelling... the most they can argue is this MIGHT be just another in a series of periodic warmups we've experienced over the last few thousand years... but none of them addresses the levels of carbon dioxide in the air, or how those levels are bound to affect our climate, none of them addresses the hole in the ozone layer that we know exists...

You don't seem to want to believe global warming is real, while I'm sitting here in the Shenandoah Valley, knowing we haven't had a really bad winter in about ten years now... every winter seems to get progressively milder around here (though it's colder than a witch's backside here today, LOL)... I've also read that numerous times in recent years, they couldn't even run the Iditarod up in Alaska until they trucked in snow along the route of the race... I never recall that happening before, until recent years...

Knowing that we pump progressively larger amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere every year, it seems to me quite logical to believe that this phenomenon is bound to affect the atmospher, and cause climate change... while it's obviously true that there have been warming cycles in centuries past, this time around we have an entirely new causative factor, one that can be demonstrated scientifically, and is quite logical to boot...

You can try to argue with me that global warming is not real, but you'll never be able to convince me... I know better... what I don't understand is why saying that sends so many of you right-leaning types into such a tizzy...

[silverbear]

sounds like gores movie description. : )

And yet, Gore's won himself a ton of awards for it... choke on that, ol' buddy...

[silverbear]

sounds like gores movie description. : )

And yet, Gore's won himself a ton of awards for it... choke on that, ol' buddy...

Incidentally, you claim that there really weren't any polar bears drowning, and by extension that the polar ice caps aren't receding, because of that British judge's ruling... but all that judge REALLY ruled on the subject was that the defense had not presented him with sufficient evidence to prove that claim to his satisfaction...

Which may mean that the judge is another who's predisposed to disbelieve global warming as a theory, or it may mean that the defense did a rather lousy job of presenting their case... but if one takes the trouble to simply look up "polar bear drownings" on Yahoo, you can find a whole host of articles that would seem to back up Gore's contention, and dispute that judge's ruling:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article767459.ece

SCIENTISTS have for the first time found evidence that polar bears are drowning because climate change is melting the Arctic ice shelf.

The researchers were startled to find bears having to swim up to 60 miles across open sea to find food. They are being forced into the long voyages because the ice floes from which they feed are melting, becoming smaller and drifting farther apart...

...“Mortalities due to offshore swimming may be a relatively important and unaccounted source of natural mortality given the energetic demands placed on individual bears engaged in long-distance swimming,” says the research led by Dr Charles Monnett, marine ecologist at the American government’s Minerals Management Service. “Drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice continues.”

The research, presented to a conference on marine mammals in San Diego, California, last week, comes amid evidence of a decline in numbers of the 22,000 polar bears that live in about 20 sites across the Arctic circle...

...As the ice pack retreats north in the summer between June and October, the bears must travel between ice floes to continue hunting in areas such as the shallow water of the continental shelf off the Alaskan coast — one of the most food-rich areas in the Arctic.

However, last summer the ice cap receded about 200 miles further north than the average of two decades ago, forcing the bears to undertake far longer voyages between floes.

“We know short swims up to 15 miles are no problem, and we know that one or two may have swum up to 100 miles. But that is the extent of their ability, and if they are trying to make such a long swim and they encounter rough seas they could get into trouble,” said Steven Amstrup, a research wildlife biologist with the USGS.

The new study, carried out in part of the Beaufort Sea, shows that between 1986 and 2005 just 4% of the bears spotted off the north coast of Alaska were swimming in open waters. Not a single drowning had been documented in the area.

However, last September, when the ice cap had retreated a record 160 miles north of Alaska, 51 bears were spotted, of which 20% were seen in the open sea, swimming as far as 60 miles off shore....

...The researchers returned to the vicinity a few days later after a fierce storm and found four dead bears floating in the water. “We estimate that of the order of 40 bears may have been swimming and that many of those probably drowned as a result of rough seas caused by high winds,” said the report.

That's those 4 bears that the judge talked about... but apparently, he didn't find it relevant at all that NO drowned polar bears had been found in nearly 20 years, before finding 4 drowned at once... yes, there was a severe storm, but do you think it was the ONLY severe storm in that 20 year span?? Even if that was the case, those bears would not have drowned if they hadn't been swimming much further from the ice floes than is their norm...

Incidentally, a lot of the work cited in this article comes from the United States Geological Service, not some partisan political organization with an agenda...

Even the notoriously conservative Wall Street Journal has weighed in on the drowning polar bears issue:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB113452435089621905-vnekw47PQGtDyf3iv5XEN71_o5I_20061214.html

In a quarter-century of aerial surveys of the Alaskan coastline before 2004, researchers from the U.S. Minerals Management Service said they typically spotted a lone polar bear swimming in the ocean far from ice about once every two years. Polar-bear drownings were so rare that they have never been documented in the surveys.

But in September 2004, when the polar ice cap had retreated a record 160 miles north of the northern coast of Alaska, researchers counted 10 polar bears swimming as far as 60 miles offshore. Polar bears can swim long distances but have evolved to mainly swim between sheets of ice, scientists say...

..."For anyone who has wondered how global warming and reduced sea ice will affect polar bears, the answer is simple -- they die," said Richard Steiner, a marine-biology professor at the University of Alaska...

IOW, four dead polar bears might not sound like much to that British judge, but it is in fact a startling development to scientists who have studied polar bear behavior for decades now...

Again, this is the Wall Street Journal here, not some left wing, environmentalist group's press release...

I could offer you literally dozens of other links that say the same thing, and not all of them would be what you could safely dismiss as left wing propaganda organs... for example, I could show you how NASA is on board with the global warming theory... ditto the World Health Organization... these are both credible scientific bodies with no political agenda when it comes to global warming that I can discern...

Bottom line, the polar bear population IS dying off at a rapid (and accelerating pace), until they are threatened with possible extinction in the not too distant future, and no matter what that British judge ruled, scientists are convinced that it's the steadily receding ice pack that is the reason...

I guess it hasn't occurred to you that that British judge could have simply been WRONG in his ruling... and even then, the judge didn't order the film not to be shown to schoolchildren, he only ordered that the teachers be provided with materials outlining the dissenting theories available... if he really thought that the science behind Gore's film was bogus, you have to think he would have ordered the film pulled from rotation in British schools...

[iceberg]

heh - rant on my friend. : )

sure the judge could be wrong.

so could gore.

what the judge did and why i have no control over and you can i could both get crazy on speculation and *both* be wrong, right?

i don't doubt species may vanish. it's happened before and it will likely happen again. where were the polar bears when greenland was green? alaska when it was a forest?

again - do not misinterpret what i say to mean i don't think we shouldn't do more to understand and work in conjunction with our environment. but when i see gore over there swapping graphs end results around to get what he wants, why?

if facts are facts he shouldn't have to do that.

as for calling a writers bias into play - go for it. my point is that people have asked me before to give links to things i feel and think and i find it pointless to do so if all it's going to do is NOT help encourage open conversation but yet, find some label for it so you can dismiss it like anything else you'd feel like dismissing for your own beliefs.

[iceberg]

And yet, Gore's won himself a ton of awards for it... choke on that, ol' buddy...

star wars won awards but it's still fiction, sb. there's also a lot of debate as to if he should have even been in it. in the end yes, he won. but not w/o wonder and questions that such an achievement shouldn't have following it.

[silverbear]

heh - rant on my friend. : )

sure the judge could be wrong.

so could gore.

The vast majority of the scientific community agrees with him... but heck, what do THEY know??

You're starting to sound like those folks who kept telling Columbus the Earth was flat... :D

again - do not misinterpret what i say to mean i don't think we shouldn't do more to understand and work in conjunction with our environment. but when i see gore over there swapping graphs end results around to get what he wants, why?

if facts are facts he shouldn't have to do that.

I've seen no evidence that he has... at least, no CREDIBLE evidence...

as for calling a writers bias into play - go for it. my point is that people have asked me before to give links to things i feel and think and i find it pointless to do so if all it's going to do is NOT help encourage open conversation but yet, find some label for it so you can dismiss it like anything else you'd feel like dismissing for your own beliefs.

I offer such links to make it easier for readers of these arguments who have never gotten around to informing themselves on the issues being argued to do so, then judge for their own selves... I know that nothing I could post will change the minds of those who are disagreeing with me, I'm not stupid...

At the same time, though, I throw those links out there as an unspoken challenge to my antagonists in those arguments, to rebut the facts I present... as a debating technique, it's quite effective, even if none of the antagonists takes the bait... their silence is likely seen by the impartial reader as a concession of defeat...

[silverbear]

star wars won awards

Star Wars won a Nobel Prize??

[BrAinPaiNt]

Star Wars won a Nobel Prize??

Yes...A nobel Peace Prize for promoting the FORCE.

Didn't you know that?

[silverbear]

Yes...A nobel Peace Prize for promoting the FORCE.

Didn't you know that?

Now, my education is complete... think how completely insufferable I'll be, now that I really DO know it all...

[BrAinPaiNt]

Now, my education is complete... think how completely insufferable I'll be, now that I really DO know it all...

Well I just have to say for the record that there was a great uproar when Star wars won the Nobel Peace prize.

See many from the empire said it was just a political award and the movie should not have won because all it did was to bash the empire and made the empire out to be the bad guys when it was clear that the empire was only doing those things to protect the people.:D You know...just another way to bash the Emperor.

[iceberg]

Star Wars won a Nobel Prize??

you said awards, not nobel peace prize. : ) yes i took humor privlidges with that one.

can't remember his name now, but trick also pointed out once that the guy who "started" GW came out later and said he was wrong - but it was too late, the ball was rolling. trick, who was that?

as for claiming the world was flat - strange analogy to run to when the vast majority of that science community was proven wrong also in time.

[peplaw06]

The vast majority of the scientific community agrees with him... but heck, what do THEY know??

You're starting to sound like those folks who kept telling Columbus the Earth was flat... :D How do you know it's not the other way around? I thought the "consensus" was that GW is real...?

[iceberg]

Well I just have to say for the record that there was a great uproar when Star wars won the Nobel Peace prize.

See many from the empire said it was just a political award and the movie should not have won because all it did was to bash the empire and made the empire out to be the bad guys when it was clear that the empire was only doing those things to protect the people.:D You know...just another way to bash the Emperor.

i will say gore is a better actor than anyone in the last 3 (um...first 3) movies with the exception of samual jackson.

[iceberg]

How do you know it's not the other way around? I thought the "consensus" was that GW is real...?

like i was saying - strange analogy when the vast science groups said it *was* flat and were proven wrong.

it happened before but can happen again. but that gets ignored much like past warming and cooling periods i suppose.

[silverbear]

can't remember his name now, but trick also pointed out once that the guy who "started" GW came out later and said he was wrong - but it was too late, the ball was rolling. trick, who was that?

I'd be interested to hear more about that, too...

as for claiming the world was flat - strange analogy to run to when the vast majority of that science community was proven wrong also in time.

Nope, it was science that was telling Columbus that the world was actually round, it was widely held, popular ignorance that still believed it was flat...

[silverbear]

i will say gore is a better actor than anyone in the last 3 (um...first 3) movies with the exception of samual jackson.

Talk about damning with faint praise, LOL...

Actually, I thought Gore WAS R2D2... :D

[iceberg]

I'd be interested to hear more about that, too...

Nope, it was science that was telling Columbus that the world was actually round, it was widely held, popular ignorance that still believed it was flat...

really? wow. ok, my bad on that one.

ok digging and found this -

http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/6345050%20Hot%20&%20Cold%20Media.pdf

The 60 scientists wrote:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605 (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605)
“If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” The letter also noted:

“‘Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible
to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’”

interesting info. fyi, i have no idea where the senator is from or his political designation.

[silverbear]

fyi, i have no idea where the senator is from or his political designation.

Ihofe is an arch-conservative Republican from Oklahoma, and has long been an ardent, indeed rabid, critic of global warming... actually, he is widely perceived-- even inside his own party-- as a crackpot on the subject... he has gone so far as to publicly equate environmentalists to Nazis, has compared the EPA to the Gestapo, has suggested that the Weather Channel is behind the whole global warming "conspiracy" (I kid you not)... he has been quoted as saying that global warming is "the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state"...

Of course, part of the reason for that is he has been bought and paid for by the oil bidness (which is hardly a surprise for any Congressman from Oklahoma, any more than it would be a surprise if a Carolina Congressman was pro-tobacco)... in the 2002 election cycle, only one Texas senator received more campaign contributions from the gas and oil industry than Inhofe did...

But no, none of that could POSSIBLY have any bearing on his stance on global warming...

Suffice it to say I wouldn't believe that moron if he told me water is wet... only Okies would keep sending such a mental deficient back to Congress... :D

As for the other piece you cited, all that shows me is there are 60 scientists around the world who dispute global warming, enough to put their names on that paper... I have no idea as to their bonafides as experts, or whether or not some or all of them have vested interests in disputing the theory...

I feel quite confident that there are FAR more than 60 scientists who are on board with global warming...

[iceberg]

but is what he's using as facts, correct? not gonna get into the name flinging on this.

In addition to global cooling fears, Time Magazine has also reported on global warming. Here is an example:

“[Those] who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weathermen have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.”

Before you think that this is just another example of the media promoting Vice President Gore’s movie, you need to know that the quote I just read you from Time Magazine was not a recent quote; it was from January 2, 1939.

Yes, in 1939. Nine years before Vice President Gore was born and over three decades before Time Magazine began hyping a coming ice age and almost five decades before they returned to hyping global warming.

Time Magazine in 1951 pointed to receding permafrost in Russia as proof that the planet was warming. In 1952, the New York Times noted that the “trump card” of global warming “has been the melting glaciers.”
-----

you see, we *have* in our own lifetimes been running in fear from a coming ice age AND now the other extreme - GW.

just makes me wonder. science usually backed those also.

[silverbear]

but is what he's using as facts, correct? not gonna get into the name flinging on this.

Didn't read it, don't have time for 68 pages, but I've read his stuff before, and found it rather weak in terms of facts... I've given you a few selected highlights of his arguments, did you find anything of substance there??

[iceberg]

Didn't read it, don't have time for 68 pages, but I've read his stuff before, and found it rather weak in terms of facts... I've given you a few selected highlights of his arguments, did you find anything of substance there??

not any more than a UK judge may have found. : )

things like we've predicted ice ages in our time as well as global warming in our time are *fact* though, SB. why is this so much different than all the "cry wolf" times before?

[silverbear]

things like we've predicted ice ages in our time as well as global warming in our time are *fact* though, SB. why is this so much different than all the "cry wolf" times before?

With each passing year, we pump more and more crap into the atmosphere... you might want to tell yourself there's no harm in that, to me that's playing the ostrich...

Those predictions of impending ice ages were never considered mainstream theory, anyway... they were generally disregarded by most, unless it was to laugh at them...

At any one time, you can find groups of so-called scientists claiming some really wild stuff... which just proves that there is a lunatic fringe even in the scientific community... but these days, global warming is accepted as real by the VAST majority of scientists willing to express themselves on the subject...

[zrinkill]

I think there is a difference in doubting global warming and doubting man made global warming.