canadafreepress.com — "Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth." With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie? Is the movie full of "junk science"?
Jun 13, 2006 View in Crawl 4
strictneinJun 14, 2006
Just like the people are doing to the scientists quoted in this story? At least these guys are actually scientists as opposed to blow-hard politicians.
twinklyjesusJun 14, 2006
@dregga:You pointed to a webpage ANYONE could've written. There was no documentation to support your claim. There was just a "hokey" graphic in the sidebar that said Exxonmobil facts. I call BS on your phoney smear page.
kraussmJun 14, 2006
that's a funny source! what a kick, a bit of proof that George W Bush isn't the source of all evil ever in the universe, by the high prophet of the lefty's, I can hear the stunned shock of them from here.
seesharpJun 14, 2006
Bioshocker, thanks for the reply...point taken. But it still doesn't explain the shrinkage of polar ice caps on Mars...and please don't think that I'm against global warming theory. Common sense is common sense any way you slice it. I'm just asking about Mars from a purely scientific approach in that I want to understand as best I can as to why this is happening there.
hallbergJun 14, 2006
No, let's not listen to both sides of the argument. On the one hand, you have a large consensus among esteemed scientists--Yale, Harvard, Berkeley, Oxford, Indian Institute of Tech, even the Pentagon--on the other side of the argument you have a jumbled assemblage of crackpots and politicos (oh, and let's not forget the scientist from the Huntsville extension of the University of Alabama). As you should recall Doug, in the 1980s many of the same arguments were made regarding the ozone layer. Critics said there was no crisis and that the science wasn't "sound." Here we are 25 years later, after a global effort to reduce CFCs--led by the United States--and the ozone is healing. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but it's just a bad idea to take bad ideas seriously.
lamuellaJun 15, 2006
what I'm saying is that you weren't comparing like with like. You're comparing predicting the weather in one place for one specific day with predicting the general trend of the weather for an entire planet.I can give you an absolutely accurate weather prediction for tomorrow if you allow me to give it in generalities. It will rain in some places. it will be windy in some places. It will be sunny in some places. It will probably not snow in most of the northern hemisphere below the arctic circle. It will snow somewhere in the southern hemisphere.Certainly, it's easy making predictions close to now than predictions further in the future. It is absolutely and inescapably true. However you are comparing making a detailed and exacting prediction about a particular place with a generalized prediction about the whole world.I can tell you with total confidence that a baby will be heavier on its first birthday than on the day it was born. I can even tell you roughly how much. I could not tell you exactly how much weight the baby will have put on by the end of the second week. There are too many variables to be exact.Trends are easier to identify than specifics. The movement of one molecule in a jug of water is tougher to predict than the movement of the whole jug.
lutherandJun 16, 2006
Oh yeah, my scientists can beat up your scientists!!!
pbarneyJan 6, 2009
Yes, @benhocking, I do have something to back that up. It's called Henry's Law. As an official "scientific law" and not just a theory, we can trust that it delivers the truth every time. In this case, as temperatures rise, the oceans release their stored CO2 to maintain equilibrium. It's a known (and accepted) scientific fact.But I understand that it wasn't in the literature you received from the Sierra Club, so I wouldn't expect you to get that.Check out "Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry" by Peter Victor Hobbs if you really want the low-down.Or, just wait, hmm, maybe 5 years when the anthropogenic global warming boat has sunk and you're scrambling for dry earth looking for some reality.