Gore's Inconvenient 9/11 Truth

[Wes Tausend]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

My response to a email being sent around:

I'm not sure I would pass this on as fact as a quick Internet search shows this information is Very questionable.

When this email says"He points out that of the 500+
scientific studies done on global warming, the percentage that do not
support these conclusions is 0%."

And in less than a Minute I came up with information to the contrary, like this "More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration stating that costly actions undertaken to reduce greenhouse emissions are not justified by the available scientific evidence."

The information following was the shortest to cut and paste, there are many other articles and educational papers to review. I think this email information does American citizens a disservice, much of the information seems to be pushed by countries with a vested interest in hobbling this country. But then again, because it comes from Al "I invented the Internet" Gore it must be true?!
Take care, Jon

the following is from a quick Google I did of the Internet on Global Warming (there were hundreds of articles and papers that do NOT back Gores assertions:

January 22, 1998
No Evidence for Global Warming
by Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D.
Welcome to the bizarre world of "global warming."

Late last year, the Clinton administration sent negotiators to Kyoto, Japan, with no scientific proof of "global warming" or that human activity is causing it. The negotiators submitted proposals for curbing U.S. "greenhouse gas" emissions that, according to a study by WEFA Inc., a widely respected economic forecaster, would result in energy price increases of between 50 percent and 200 percent over the next 25 years. Electricity prices could rise from 40 percent to 50 percent, according to the WEFA forecast, and the price of gasoline by 70 cents per gallon. That translates to an increase in the average family's annual electric bill of more than $250, and in the annual cost of gasoline of $200.

But that was just the beginning.

U.S. negotiators then backed down from this preposterous negotiating position, and agreed to even greater emissions reductions than they sought when the talks began—from a reduction in greenhouse gases to 1990 levels to 7 percent below 1990 levels. Add that 7 percent to the 27 percent increase in greenhouse gas emissions that will occur over the next few decades without the treaty, and it turns out U.S. negotiators actually called for a reduction of about 34 percent in the level of U.S. emissions.

All this to combat a "global warming" crisis that can't be verified by the scientific community. Extensive polling has revealed nothing like the kind of consensus the administration is claiming for the idea that the world is facing a global-warming catastrophe or that human activity is responsible. More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration stating that costly actions undertaken to reduce greenhouse emissions are not justified by the available scientific evidence.

Even the scientist who first warned Vice President Al Gore about global warming, Roger Revelle, wrote shortly before his death: "The scientific basis for greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time." Responsible environmentalism is one thing—but don't you think we ought to be sure this thing is happening before we make a huge economic sacrifice for it?

Few Americans understand what's really going on. Hint: The conservative revolution has robbed liberals of a vehicle for expanding the size and power of government. But a long-term environmental crisis, even one manufactured by alarmists, could change that.

The global-warming scenario provides advocates of big government with an excuse for tapping into the lifeline of the U.S. economy for the foreseeable future. Better yet, the current president will be long gone before most of the belt-tightening begins to pinch.

The U.S. Senate should shut this one down before it goes any further.



THIS is the original email I received Advertising AL Gore movie that I took issue with:

In a message dated 3/20/2007 4:04:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, cibrz2000@yahoo.com writes:
Note: forwarded message attached.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________


“An Inconvenient Truth”

Al Gore is traveling the world with the courage of his convictions and
with conviction in his heart to show everyone what is happening to our
beloved home, earth.

His film is excellent and I am committed to help spread the word about
global warming in honor of the effect of this film on me. If you have
not watched it yet, please do, and if you have invite folks over and
watch it again, enjoy an evening of deep, invigorating, and enlivening
discussion, and then make a commitment yourself

Some have called it apocalyptic, but the real possibilities are backed
by years of scientific investigation. He points out that of the 500+
scientific studies done on global warming, the percentage that do not
support these conclusions is 0%.

He is testifying before congress tomorrow and taking postcards from
everyone who signs in support of attending to the global warming issue.
Please take a moment to lend your support.

I thank you.

Holly

“Thank you for helping me take this crucial message to Congress.

On March 21st, I'm going to hand-deliver your messages on television
when I testify at Congressional hearings on global warming.

This is an incredible opportunity to show Congress the energy behind
this issue. I need your help to really make it count. Can you commit to
getting 10 of your friends to sign a message to Congress before March
21st?

To get your friends involved in our effort, please forward them this
note or direct them to:

http://www.algore.com/cards.html

Thank you,
-Al Gore

================================================== =======\

Jon,

Thanks.

This aptly illustrates the problem. Many are not comprehending what they'e reading. It must be like JC with the high IQ says.

Late last year, the Clinton administration sent negotiators to Kyoto, Japan...
Electricity prices could rise from 40 percent to 50 percent, according to the WEFA forecast, and the price of gasoline by 70 cents per gallon...

Gas is already past this increase and we can expect about another $1/gal every couple years. Clinton hasn't been in office for nearly 8 years.

It's a new world. We'd better have far more government control in the future and far less corporate control. Especially fossil fuel mega-corporations where we can't even vote public policy.

Imagine, "I'm from the corporation and I'm here to help you". Right.



...

[Wes Tausend]

...



First the killer temperatures due to extra warm weather ...and now this on top of it:

( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21491206/?GT1=10450 )

Criminy...

...

[bomelia]

Originally Posted by Tday

Yes, he is tough to like...but he's been the one to bring this out and deserves that credit.

And we can be green while loving our cobras and going to the track...we just need to find other ways to do that. Kind of like the rap on Gore for using a lot of electricity and not being responsible. He's doing his part. I'll do mine...but I'm keeping this car.

Tom

Bring WHAT out, that the planet is cycling through a climate change? This has been happening ever since the Earth was the Earth. What Gore is all about is pinning it on humans. This is absolute folly. And the Ignobel peace prize is BS. Its a political tool. Arafat???? Carter???!!!! Now Gore????!!!

I will tell you deserves a peace prize. Ronald Reagan.

Yeah, like that would have ever happened. Go ahead, support this stupid idea. And kiss your non-catalytic, gas guzzling Cobra goodbye.

Sorry, your post count indicates you are new here. So I will refrain from calling you an fool.

Mike

PS: IS it me or what?? Why is it as we get close to elections we start seeing this liberal crap in here? (low count, liberal posting bs)

[bomelia]

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend

You're not the only one to think he's "on to something". About 90 percent of the worlds mainstream rational scientists recognize that the climate is not only seriously changing, but that humans still are (or have been) encouraging it to happen.
...

Wes, post your source.

Mike

[Tday]

Hey Mike---we're in lounge, so you can call me what you'd like if you're into that. We'll disagree on this one, probably most politics actually, though I did read your posted link.

Great cobra forum, especially for us new guys. And I won't be posting that much since mostly I need to read what others say...you know...use the search and post an occasional question.

Tom

Tom

[J. T. Toad]

Tom,
here you go. this has been hashed on this site soooo much. Coming from your illogical description of 2+2=5.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_plus_two_makes_five

I am not sure this is worth the effort of cutting and pasting
www.junkscience.com
http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

for your viewing pleasure
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU

is Stossel mainstream media?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9laiUXS1o

[J. T. Toad]

ok I can't resist. For those who don't like clicking links.

"The phrase "two plus two makes five" (or "2 + 2 = 5") is sometimes used as a succinct and vivid representation of an illogical statement, especially one made and maintained to suit an ideological agenda."

quite poignant, considering this discussion, or any discussion for that matter, on the validity of Gore's ideals

[J. T. Toad]

The No-B*lls Prize

[Tday]

Hey JT...thanks for the wikipedia link. I had no idea, but actually my signature is different...small detail. It reminded me of my econ class days or math days when profs would put up things that sounded just like that. I thought it was just funny for that reason. Anyway, you guys get pretty hot in these discussions...as if one more link will be that knock out blow. As for me, I prefer the quote by Thomas Jefferson in his 1st inaugural speech..."every difference in opinion is not a difference in principle." And there are clearly differences in opinion on this topic. Personally I think it's worth thinking about and figuring out---won't be me, I'm not that scientist. But I appreciate the work on all sides of the discussion. Tom

[J. T. Toad]

I am not sure what the differences you specified are, so you might be interested to consider, using the same logic, the fact that 2+2 for very large numbers of 2, ie. greater then 2.75, would actually be 6. But then again, it depends on what the definition of 'is' is, isn't it?

Just calling a spade a spade.

one more link will be that final blow? laughable. why is it that so many will choose ignorance to a genuine education, oh wait that's Marxism for ya. del. Each one of my links are nothing more than pointing out the hypocrisies of which the masses hold no accountability.

Personally, I like this quote of Jefferson's;

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."

I know you would never be persuaded. You can't. But for someone who might be reading this thread, I will leave it up to them to determine what they want to understand.

[Tday]

cute...you mean it depends on what "is" is, *doesn't* it.

But to your confusion on the difference...

One is "sometimes used as a succinct and vivid representation of an illogical statement" (news to me...never heard the wikipedia version) and mine is a just spoof on somethings I always found challenging in class. Stuff that seemed illogical but which was proved and all that. Probably just me, but I found it funny. That's not really that hard to understand.

Tom

[bomelia]

I was looking at the plot of temperature and CO2, (thanks JT) and I was thinking the same thing. What would they look like laid on top of each other? Also, lets look at smaller time scales since these enormous scales make it difficult to resolve time dependancies. It was good to see that one of those scientists did just that. Because then one can see the true relationship...temperature LEADS CO2. This is the fundamental tenent that the religion of global warming is based upon (manmade CO2 is causing the temperature to rise). But CO2 is FOLLOWING temperature rises (always, even in today's era). So, Wes, Tom, what do you read into that??

Mike

[Tday]

Oddly enough...this is as the debate should be and a good point if as you say. Perhaps it will color the real debate.

My point is easier that all this...and probably shared by many...there is a credible argument made that CO2 is a serious problem (and the fixes proposed in the movie aren't even very draconian.) Imo, the evidence that the issue is ignorable and should be ignored isn't enough to warrant not taking some action. Perhaps the temp leading CO2 will be the breakthrough that ends the discussion. It's an interesting idea.

Tom

[bomelia]

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...shcn/ushcn.jsp

Interesting site.

good article: http://www.businessandmedia.org/comm...822130511.aspx


Mike

[427 S/O]

Here ya' go.....

The lesson? It is difficult to predict the hurricane activity. Bill Grey used his hypotheses about decadal cycles. Advocates of the global warming theory have used their universally dark picture of the future to make similar predictions. All of them were spectacularly wrong. I don't know whether the hurricane science can ever become predictive, reliable, and quantitative, but it is clear that their field is not yet there now.

You should also notice how the discussions about possible links between the hurricanes and the CO2 emissions dramatically evaporated. Whenever record cold temperatures are broken somewhere, the global warming apologists immediately tell you that you are not allowed to talk about them because it is just weather.

Last year when we happened to see many hurricanes which - you might think - are also just weather, they would be speculating about the links between the hurricane intensity and the CO2 emissions. Some of the slightly more honest ones wouldn't directly argue that these two things are linked because there is clearly no evidence - but they still wanted you to think about this possible link.

That's the most efficient way to create myths: if you induce the atmosphere in which the laymen start to invent these irrational relationships themselves, you're the winner.

In 2006, with the hurricane rate plummeting by 70 percent from 2005, they no longer invite you to think about such links because such a reasoning could have the opposite effect than they want: it could lead to you think that our activity is actually making things safer with time instead of more dangerous because the hurricanes are disappearing as we pump record amounts of CO2 into air. Needless to say, neither of these two conclusions can be supported by any existing statistically significant data or reliable theories.

The global warming theory with its possible impact on the hurricanes or anything else you can think about is just a new example of an old, pre-historical form of religion. Ten thousand years ago, people would be afraid of many things and they would invent irrational links between them and gods who were responsible for them but they didn't yet know how to look at all these phenomena without bias, how to eliminate wrong hypotheses, and how make scientifically justifiable conclusions.

Unfortunately, Marx was qualitatively right in this case: the history resembles a spiral. The believers in these very primitive forms of religion have the same logic as their counterparts who lived 10,000 years ago but they have much more powerful tools to cause damage which could be a reason to be concerned.

And that's the memo.

Posted by Lumo, and I don't know if that's his first or last name.

[427 S/O]

More from Lumo....I like this guy.



If you compare the predictions about the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season with reality as of August 23rd, 2006, you will see an incredible example of a breathtaking bias in the media - a good toy model of the media's manipulation with the climate in general.

Let us start with the predictions.

In March 2006, USA Today (and Reuters) told their readers that the "2006 hurricane season could be worse than the 2005". To "prove" their point, they quoted a United Nations bureaucrat:


"We have reason to fear that 2006 could be as bad as 2005," Jan Egeland, the undersecretary general for humanitarian affairs who coordinates U.N. emergency relief, told Reuters last week.
This is apparently what they call scientific evidence. The same prediction has been repeated in virtually all media you can imagine. For example, you could read it in the Insurance Journal. Some predictions relied on experts, namely Dr. William Gray from Colorado. For example, he said:

"Information obtained through November 2005 indicates that the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season will be much more active than the average 1950-2000 season. We estimate that 2006 will have about 9 hurricanes (average is 5.9), 17 named storms (average is 9.6), 85 named storm days (average is 49.1), 45 hurricane days (average is 24.5), 5 intense (Category 3-4-5) hurricanes (average is 2.3) and 13 intense hurricane days (average is 5.0)."
Trust me that there has been a lot of this stuff - BBC, CNN, MSNBC, New Scientist, NPR - together with theories that the hurricanes are caused by global warming and all this propaganda we have seen millions of times. Finally, we can get to the actual data:

2005 Atlantic hurricane season
2006 Atlantic hurricane season
By August 23rd, 2005, we had seen 12 storms. They started with the letters A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,10,J,K. Five of them have been hurricanes. Emily and Katrina were category 5 hurricanes and Dennis was a category 4 hurricane - still a strong major hurricane.

By August 23rd, 2006, we have seen 4 storms: Alberto, Beryl, Chris, Debby. Neither of them has been a hurricane - not even a small hurricane. Debby is the first one that at least has a chance to become a minimal hurricane on Sunday or so - but be sure that it won't become one. 2006 is not only milder than 2005 but also than 2004, 2003, and most other years. Right now, in the middle of the season, 2006 is below the average.

December 2006 update: Indeed, it seems that the number of tropical storms (9) as well as hurricanes (5) as well as (minimal) major hurricanes (2) will stay below the average of 1950-2000. The season officially ended at the end of November. The absence of any tropical storms from the early October can be partially explained by a new El Nino.

The first tropical storm that will become a hurricane, Ernesto, will only form 4 days after this posting is completed. It will be downgraded back to a tropical storm in a day.

So far, the predictions for the storms in 2006 have been wrong more than three-fold. The hurricane predictions have so far been infinitely wrong. Let me now assume that the rest of the hurricane season won't change the situation qualitatively. What happens when it is almost obvious that the doomsaying predictions will be dramatically falsified? Well, no one will tell you that the alarmist predictions were just a piece of crap. The USA Today won't publish any errata. And no one, except for The Reference Frame, will propose that something should be changed about the hurricane science because of this dramatic failure.

William Gray and Philip Klotzbach started with a modest reduction of their prediction for this year at the beginning of August. But they still predicted an above-the-average season. Instead of 9 hurricanes, they now predict 7 hurricanes while the actual number so far is zero. Why didn't they just say that their prediction was wrong so that they could lower the prediction to a realistic number of 4-5 hurricanes instead of 7 hurricanes? Isn't scientific dishonesty a part of the answer?

Note added later: On September 1st, 7 will be indeed lowered to 5.


Note that William Gray is one of the good guys - a kind of "skeptic" who is himself under a severe attack of the groupthink of his colleagues. Despite his strangely slow correction of his radical prediction, he at least realizes that the hurricane variation is caused predominantly by natural factors - unlike people like James Elsner...

What does everyone do if it turns out that 2006 is going to be not only below the average but clearly below the average?

Your guess is correct: nothing will happen at all. It is OK to scare people. It is OK to fill newspapers with a lot of nonsense and junk science as long as it is politically correct. No corrective measures are necessary, except for corrections of politically incorrect scientific conclusions that simply can't be tolerated. As far as the climate goes, we don't live in a scientific world in which falsified predictions would have some consequences. We're not learning anything from the errors.

And remember that it has only been a few months since these predictions that will probably be wrong. After a few months, no one cares. Most predictions that the climate scientists are producing talk about years like 2050. These charlatans are safe: permanently safe.

Every person with common sense could predict that 2006 won't be as bad as 2005 simply because the hurricanes are random phenomena, and because 2005 was far worse than the average, it is almost guaranteed that 2006 would be much milder. Even if there were some correlation between natural climate trends (or even the human activity) on one side and the hurricanes on the other side, it is completely clear that these effects are negligible in comparison with the annual fluctuations.

The only exceptions - people who are not quite able to think like this - are the scientists who are actually paid for such predictions. They have already told us so much nonsense about the so-called "global warming" and all of its hypothetical consequences that they have started to believe this crap themselves. Of course that the real jerks are the politicians and the journalists-activists who are primarily responsible for misleading the public; but it couldn't work if the scientists did not invest their credentials into this dirty game. Many of the scientists are effectively employed as intellectual prostitutes indirectly paid by the far left charlatans.

Until the "experts" are fired or otherwise punished when their predictions fail so miserably - which can only happen if there is some real competition in their field - the world of the hurricane predictions won't have a chance to become a scientific world. And that's the memo.

[bomelia]

OK, I found the data that Gore is using:

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm (CO2)

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/tem...k/jouz_tem.htm (temperature)

And a analysis that uses it:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/

Their conclusion is that it cannot be determined (from the data) that the CO2 data leads or lags the temperature data. I agree. The temperature data has nowhere near the resolution that the CO2 data has. But it should be possible to "degrade" the CO2 data to the level of the temperature data. But still, the number of years represented by the core sampling reolution is problematic. Still, there are analyses indicating an 800 to 1000 year lag (in CO2). http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13.

Go ahead and dump the data into excel for yourself. I did. Tom, I am sure you are a smart person. Don't let poiticians fool you.

Mike

[Cobrabill]

Gore explained:
Al Gore is the most worthless,forget-able,complete waste of oxygen since Jimmy Carter.And there is the link:
How many times would Carters name have made it into the news(after his term)if he WASN'T linked with Habitat for Humanity?It almost like he's been doing penance for being the most limp-dicked excuse of a President to EVER occupy the oval office.And he wanted/wants his name associated with something other than being known as the biggest Joke in presidential history.

Now to Gore.If he didn't find something to "attach" himself to(global warming)he would just fade away as the VP of "blowjob Willie"and the guy who whined like a five year-old girl when he lost the 2000 election.And lets not forget his equally "wacked" wife-Tipper.Remember her campaign to get lyrics rated on albums?Watching Frank Zappa handing her ass to her on a platter in front of a Senate hearing was something i'll never forget.

Question for Tom: Do you think we can change the temperature of the earth?

[Tday]

Nice rant, but you missed the thread. It's played out.

[bomelia]

Nice duck, but its not played out. Sounds to me like "the debates over". It is not. Bill is spot on (and dam funny too!!)

So, answer the thread with something other than "its played out" or move it on out.

Mike