nytimes.com— Scientists "there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”
Mar 13, 2007View in Crawl 4
I can't believe the NYT published this article. The scientist that is most quoted throughout the article to discredit Al Gore is himself way outside the mainstream of scientific thought on global warming. He does not believe atmospheric carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming (<a class="user" href="http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2006/pr/wwu.htm).">http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2006/pr/wwu.htm).</a> He also makes misleading statements:He [Easterbrook] hotly disputed Mr. Gore's claim that "our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this" threatened change.Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."Gore is not up in arms about global warming merely because the global climate is changing. Easterbrook is correct to point out there have been larger temperature swings in the past. However, these swings have never happened so quickly as of now. This is what Gore (and mainstream geology) has been trying to warn us about.Shame on the NYT. I expected better.
What is the big deal about being alarmed? Does everyone LIKE breathing in pollution and seeing cut down forests?Something is clearly WRONG with the planet. The problem is no one seems to take anything with a grain of salt. They choose what they want to accept.David Suzuki has exaggerated before, and as soon as someone found out that he was exaggerating, they totally emptied their mind of anything credible or not that they had heard from him before.The 'inconvenient truth' analogy is brilliant, because it completely summarizes how people perceive it. It's inconvenient, so lets find a way to make it theory rather then fact, or make it not a big deal.Why can't we just admit something is wrong, stop arguing about what it is EXACTLY and start acting on what we can see and we each know is wrong!
Anyone that is truly interested in thinking about this subject. Please look at the 400,000 year graphs from the ice cores ... if you overlap them and look closely you will find that CO2 appears to follow temperature ... not the other way around. Which would explain that although the CO2 levels are twice as high as they have ever been, temperatures are not.
"What is the big deal about being alarmed? Does everyone LIKE breathing in pollution and seeing cut down forests?"Then explain why they aren't whining about the rain forests like they whine about SUVs? Why do the left wing people who take up the spotlight in the global warming hysteria tend to fly around the world on jets? Why do they have gigantic houses? We have been doing a great job in America at curbing pollution. If you travel back 100 years or so to any major American city it would be worse than your typical Chinese metropolis in terms of pollution. We have been doing a good job at curbing pollution. Now the lunatics want to curb CO2, which is not a pollutant. If you cared about the environment you'd spend a lot more energy figuring out how to save the rain forests... which BTW is where the majority of the world's capacity to absorb CO2 is located.
That is the reason to concentrate on the science and ignore the rhetoric. Don't discount any data resource merely because of it's funding source. Ad hominem attacks don't disprove anything.Once the resource has proven useless (i.e. it's just canards & other forms of sophistry), the funding source can be used to show that it was malicious deceit rather incompetence that caused the invalid report.
To answer the other question...Yes. There are megalomaniacs using validated scientific theories as the basis to further their own agendas. That is nothing new. There have been people using valid group issues solely for their personal benefit since the dawn of civilization.Purposefully ignorning scientific research results & theories because politicians, or anybody else, might use them as a bullying point is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Closed AccountMar 14, 2007
Al Gore is a climate scientist?
Closed AccountMar 14, 2007
I can't believe the NYT published this article. The scientist that is most quoted throughout the article to discredit Al Gore is himself way outside the mainstream of scientific thought on global warming. He does not believe atmospheric carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming (<a class="user" href="http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2006/pr/wwu.htm).">http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2006/pr/wwu.htm).</a> He also makes misleading statements:He [Easterbrook] hotly disputed Mr. Gore's claim that "our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this" threatened change.Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."Gore is not up in arms about global warming merely because the global climate is changing. Easterbrook is correct to point out there have been larger temperature swings in the past. However, these swings have never happened so quickly as of now. This is what Gore (and mainstream geology) has been trying to warn us about.Shame on the NYT. I expected better.
dctherandomguyMar 14, 2007
What is the big deal about being alarmed? Does everyone LIKE breathing in pollution and seeing cut down forests?Something is clearly WRONG with the planet. The problem is no one seems to take anything with a grain of salt. They choose what they want to accept.David Suzuki has exaggerated before, and as soon as someone found out that he was exaggerating, they totally emptied their mind of anything credible or not that they had heard from him before.The 'inconvenient truth' analogy is brilliant, because it completely summarizes how people perceive it. It's inconvenient, so lets find a way to make it theory rather then fact, or make it not a big deal.Why can't we just admit something is wrong, stop arguing about what it is EXACTLY and start acting on what we can see and we each know is wrong!
earthman1Mar 14, 2007
Anyone that is truly interested in thinking about this subject. Please look at the 400,000 year graphs from the ice cores ... if you overlap them and look closely you will find that CO2 appears to follow temperature ... not the other way around. Which would explain that although the CO2 levels are twice as high as they have ever been, temperatures are not.
Closed AccountMar 14, 2007
"What is the big deal about being alarmed? Does everyone LIKE breathing in pollution and seeing cut down forests?"Then explain why they aren't whining about the rain forests like they whine about SUVs? Why do the left wing people who take up the spotlight in the global warming hysteria tend to fly around the world on jets? Why do they have gigantic houses? We have been doing a great job in America at curbing pollution. If you travel back 100 years or so to any major American city it would be worse than your typical Chinese metropolis in terms of pollution. We have been doing a good job at curbing pollution. Now the lunatics want to curb CO2, which is not a pollutant. If you cared about the environment you'd spend a lot more energy figuring out how to save the rain forests... which BTW is where the majority of the world's capacity to absorb CO2 is located.
vikingcoderMar 14, 2007
@jcm267The primary CO2 sink is the ocean. The oceans are currently absorbing 2 Gt (billion metric tons)/yr, while vegetation is absorbing 1.2 Gt/yr. However, land use changes are negating 1.1 Gt of that absorption.<a class="user" href="http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/carbon_cycle/CDIAC_glob_c_cycle.gif">http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/carbon_cycle/CDIAC_glob_c_cycle.gif</a>Vitamin D is not a poison. It is an essential nutrient. However, taking 0.000002% of your body mass of it daily is a toxic overdose - i.e. poisonous.<a class="user" href="http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/5/842">http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/5/842</a>CO2 is a neccesary trace constituent of the atmosphere. It is the primary forcing agent in the natural greenhouse effect that keeps the planet at 15? C rather than -18? C - water vapor is the primary passive agent.Increasing the CO2 concentration enhances the natural greenhouse effect in a logarithmic response. Just as Vitamin can be a poison in large enough doses, CO2 can be a pollutant is large enough amounts.
vikingcoderMar 14, 2007
That is the reason to concentrate on the science and ignore the rhetoric. Don't discount any data resource merely because of it's funding source. Ad hominem attacks don't disprove anything.Once the resource has proven useless (i.e. it's just canards & other forms of sophistry), the funding source can be used to show that it was malicious deceit rather incompetence that caused the invalid report.
vikingcoderMar 14, 2007
To answer the other question...Yes. There are megalomaniacs using validated scientific theories as the basis to further their own agendas. That is nothing new. There have been people using valid group issues solely for their personal benefit since the dawn of civilization.Purposefully ignorning scientific research results & theories because politicians, or anybody else, might use them as a bullying point is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
libertaoMar 14, 2007
"Normally the Communists are vehemently opposed to anything that creates or widens class disparities."FYP--Believe it or not, there is a difference.
mvannatterMay 14, 2007
br...too cold here ;( where's the warming?
beavismcsleavisNov 18, 2007
Wow...you really are nuts!Hats off to you for staying true to your causes though....I guess.