Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Scientist are upset with Gore's alarmism on global warming
nytimes.com — Scientists "there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”
jazar01- 1020 diggs
- digg it
- hnrksn, on 10/12/2007, -56/+71Global exaggeration
- trghpy, on 10/12/2007, -46/+14Is it an exaggeration or is it the fact that unless you demagogue on a subject nobody listens?
- fober, on 10/12/2007, -39/+97If anything, the article's title is exaggerated.
- ChumpChief, on 10/12/2007, -34/+80Weak... all the scientists ask for is for clarification and context, and mention of one or two outliers. There are no major falsehoods exposed.
- hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -23/+56From TFA: "He clearly has supporters among leading scientists, who commend his popularizations and call his science basically sound. In December, he spoke in San Francisco to the American Geophysical Union and got a reception fit for a rock star from thousands of attendees."
Obviously there are people who disagree, as there are with almost any scientific theory, but Gore's position is a fairly mainstream one. The submitter makes it sound like _all_ scientists are critical of Gore, when they are not. Ironically, this is the exact type of exaggeration that they accuse Gore of making. - TomPlansMedia, on 10/12/2007, -17/+34i agree that this is an important read, but not when the reader is lured by your headline. sorry, but too many people just read the headlines on digg, and this title is grossly exaggerated. buried as innaccurate. : /
- rmad1949, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6You mean to tell me there are still people who believe what they read?
- mesoed, on 10/12/2007, -15/+13@hipnerd : Gore's position is mainstream is because it's dramatic and the media jumped to that side. Scientists are starting to speak out because there have been wild claims by Gore and the media that "nearly every scientist believes in man-made global warming" and those false claims of "every scientist" are getting more frustrating.
No matter the results of us spewing carbons into the air, the result of acting like global warming is happening means a cleaner environment. It's ALL GOOD in the end. - GoodDamon, on 10/12/2007, -17/+13"We would like him to include a little more data on X, Y, and Z" is not the same as "OMG GORE IS LIEING AND WRONG LOLWTFBBQ!!!1!11"
Buried. - kyledavis, on 10/12/2007, -18/+13Humans are destroying the climate. Humans have no affect on the climate.
The truth is somewhere in between. - hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17@mesoed: The impression I got from the article was that certain scientists had problems with certain portions of Gore's presentation. They disagreed with his conclusions on hurricanes, or the level that the sea would rise. The U.N. report that came out disagreed with some of Gore's details, but it agreed with his central tenet that global warming is a real phenomena and that man-made pollutants are responsible for it's rapid increase.
The scientists in the article regretted that the movie was not more nuanced. That may be the natural result of simplifying a very complex topic. Except for a very few contrarians, they did not disagree that global warming is happening, only with the details. - TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9""""""
People of faith tend to think that God created the universe just for humans and that they have a personal relationship with this Supreme Creator. Atheists just ask for evidence that this Supreme Creator even exists. So tell me again who's humble?"""""""
That would be agnosticism not atheism.
Eric Wilson - hawk0168, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Buried as duplicate AND inaccurate.
- skilless, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8The world is flat. The world is round.
The truth is somewhere in between. - megaton, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5The article may not have addressed any concrete issues, but this retort to Gore's "documentary" does:
http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response-book.cfm - sil5er, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5tomplansmedia: "this title is grossly exaggerated. buried as innaccurate." ... this comment really got my attention.
The source article title is "From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype".
The source article says "..Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. “Climate change is a real and serious problem” that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. “The cacophony of screaming,” he added, “does not help.”"
The digg page title is "Scientist are upset with Gore's alarmism on global warming".
Exactly which 'title is grossly exaggerated' in your opinion? Please be clearer in your posts.
How about explaining what connection you make between 'title.. exaggerated' and '.. as innaccurate'.
Please example us when any news source has EVER not used either exaggeration, word-play, or some other unnecessary gimmick on their titles? Have you never seen a newspaper, at all? Surely you must be kidding.
You're claiming superior knowledge on this topic (implied by your edict that 'story is inaccurate') so please share with us all. I don't think you've connected the dots, and it seems to me you're making excuses.
I bury stuff occasionally, but I don't try to 'spin' things my way ... if you don't like it, thats fine with me, but why try to deceive people that a title is inaccurate, when its actually pretty bang on, IMHO... am I alone in thinking title is ok?! - BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@skilless
Indeed, the answer lies in-between. The earth is elliptical. - JigoroKano, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@TKDWILSON
"That would be agnosticism not atheism."
Actually it's completely ambiguous. Atheists are not people who have decided there is no god and are unwilling to change their minds in the face of evidence. They are just people who don't believe in a god and it's completely typical of them to ask for evidence proportional to the claim. And until that evidence is presented, they will go about their non-belief. - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Megaton,
Like most other pieces of global warming denial propaganda, that article is brought to you by the Anarcho-Capitalists... AKA, the Freemarketeers.
In other words the corporations who operate ethically questionable businesses (Oil, Fast Food, Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Drug) believe it is their right to operate unchecked by the citizens of the planet they pollute, poison and plunder. They set up organisations such as the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" or the "Consumer Freedom Group" via marketters such as Richard Berman and the like. Funding from ExxonMobil and Western Fuels has found its way into both the aforementioned "non-profit" marketing organisations.
They used to pay pop stars, but the landscape has changed. - Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=global+warming+swindle&hl=en
Its worth a watch, but quite long. 70 mins or so. Basically shows that the CO2 graphs that gore uses are not even CLOSE to accurate enough, and shows quite clearly that there is a MUCH closer relationship between the sun's activity and earth temps (OF COURSE). The documentary also has TONS of scientists which contradict many of Al Gore's assertions. - lilrabbit129, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"In other words the corporations who operate ethically questionable businesses (Oil, Fast Food, Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription Drug) believe it is their right to operate unchecked by the citizens of the planet they pollute, poison and plunder. "
WTF? Fast food and Perscription Drug? Fast food may not be good for you, but they are hardly plundering the planet. Also, while perscription drug companies may not be the nicest or most philanthropic entities, they are far from plundering the planet.
Talk about alarmists... - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Muyoso:
Funnily enough, further to my comment above, the "great global warming swindle" is directed by the guy who's also known for his cutting edge truthiness enriched documentaries:
Equinox: Breast Implants are good for women's health!
Against Nature: How environmentalism damages profits
Modified Truth: Genetically Modified and patented crops are good for the world.
and of course the "great global warming swindle"
Martin Durkin is often funded by the likes of LM group (formerly the Living Marxism Group)
His funders are, as i've stated, freemarketeers - Groups who represent the interests of ethically questionable multinational corporations.
His films are marketting tools, his funders are ethically bankrupt, and his science is highly questionable. Many of his featured scientists in his docos have been very outspoken about being misrepresented by him. - CompIsMyRx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Everybody knows global warming is the work of Manbearpig.
- Malakin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A lot of Jazar01's submitted stories have blatant agendas and this is no exception. Marked as inaccurate for the ridiculous title.
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@Muyoso
Here are a few references to back up bitcloud's statements.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/03/16/modified-truth/
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=LM_group
- trghpy, on 10/12/2007, -46/+14Is it an exaggeration or is it the fact that unless you demagogue on a subject nobody listens?
- Surfer51, on 10/12/2007, -46/+34This would be an inconvenient truth to big Al...
- quomen, on 10/12/2007, -14/+28rtfa, they don't mention anything about that
- mattowan, on 10/12/2007, -47/+45If the New York Times is critical of Gore you know he's way over the top.
- Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -21/+20RTFA
The title is inaccurate. - Ajajadude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Besides, we all know what it takes to get the public to move on something: a large disaster (i.e. 9/11 or Katrina) or sensationalism. And even then, I'd hardly call the movie sensationalist, he's giving data gathered by scientists while also adding the flare of "entertainment" through "shocking" pictures and graphs to get people to sit up and pay attention.
- Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -21/+20RTFA
- roughridersfan, on 10/12/2007, -42/+24Everyday, more objections to manmade global warming come up.
- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -32/+47Like what? I haven't seen a new line of apologetics from global-warming deniers since they tried that "Mars is warming up too!" idiocy a while back, never mind actual scientific data.
Whoops, I just posted something that goes against the group-think. Digg down in 3, 2, 1... - kukyona, on 10/12/2007, -29/+13@CopperFalcon
"Whoops, I just posted something that goes against the group-think. Digg down in 3, 2, 1..."
Are you doubting the consensus on global warming hype? Thats like denying the holocost really happened.... you denier! - CkMaverick, on 10/12/2007, -19/+12@kukyona
Your comparison has no merit whatsoever. Unless you can mathematically prove global warming right here and now you really have no right to compare it to an extremely well documented and accepted historical event. Global warming is far far overhyped at the moment. The whole field is still in wide speculation and we (I am a physics and mathematics graduate) are still reluctant to even acknowledge it as fact. Not to say it isn't but we still don't know. Even the UN Report from the leading scientists claimed that it was likely caused by humans but we still don't really know. This planet has millions of years chalk full of extreme climate variation long before man was ever on this planet. Not to mention variations even when man was on this planet prior to being industrious i.e. The Little Ice Age... To get to the point, people running around claiming the world is coming to an end within 100 years and thousands of species will become extinct are just prophesizing and exagerrating speculation on a subject we still know little to nothing about. Climate is still a very complicated subject, while we are getting alot better at, we still cannot yet fully fathom. We cannot accurately predict it yet to an exact percentage... How many times has your weatherman been wrong.... - YourDoom123, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5@kukyona
try a /sarcasm tag... seems like some diggers are a little thick skulled... - GoodDamon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15@CkMaverick
"Even the UN Report from the leading scientists claimed that it was likely caused by humans but we still don't really know."
The day the scientists start telling us they know something with absolute, 100% certainty is the day to stop listening to them. You will never get a respectable, reputable scientist to say they have 100% certainty on anything. - bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3dfick:
>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.”
The article is poorly researched for the New York Times -- it quotes Richard Lindzen, for one (who charges the oil and gas industry $2500 a day for "consulting.") while Easterbrook is a "fellow" with the Brookings Institute Coin Operated Thinktank.
The article also incorrectly repeats the Republican attacks that he said that global warming would cause the seas to rise 22 feet, versus 12 inches, when in fact he stated that if antartica melted entirely that would be the case (mathematically quite true.)
It's pretty shoddy work for the New York Times, usually they're better than this. - theodicey, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Easterbrook's claim is FUD, like the rest of this crap article.
15,000 years ago, we were still in an ice age. OF COURSE there were larger temperature swings.
In the last 1300 years...not so much. The "Medieval warm period" is completely overblown by denialists. The latest IPCC report shows that the earth is warmer now, with > 95% confidence
And besides that: "Gore never said (as far as I know, no one has ever said) that the temperature swing in the last century is the widest temperature swing ever. Gore's point is that the global average temperature has never shifted so much so quickly -- about ten times faster than previous swings. That speed, after all, is the primary evidence of human involvement." http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/12/233737/021
- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -32/+47Like what? I haven't seen a new line of apologetics from global-warming deniers since they tried that "Mars is warming up too!" idiocy a while back, never mind actual scientific data.
- DryvBy, on 10/12/2007, -41/+37This will never be dugg up. Too many digg hippies.
- bobcrotch, on 10/12/2007, -16/+16Don't confuse hippies with people who just agree with things because most others do.
- Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -19/+19Having the desire to ensure a livable planet for the next few centuries = hippies?
I thought it was rationalism. - SilentSpyder, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7Or people who just think "better safe than sorry".
- DryvBy, on 10/12/2007, -13/+9Actually, it doesn't matter. If there's THAT big of a whole in the ozone, then we're doomed regardless. Did you hippies ever go to school and read everything? You can't repair that crap so who gives a flying crap?
Also, have you ever wondered why "global warming" has become a quick fad and everything that's safe for the environment is 2x more than the normal stuff? If the scientist care so much about saving mother nature, then why not charge less for safe stuff? If it's so dangerous to drive a gas car and leave my computer on while I'm at work, then why do we have to pay more to save the world? Wouldn't you, as a hippie yourself, want to save the environment so much that you wouldn't mind losing money (since death will surely come out of ice caps melting...). Learn to think for yourself, sucker.
Global Warming (being as fake as it is) = Great Marketing. Because there's always room for suckers. - 10lbhammer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@ dryvby:
this is *not* about a "whole" in the ozone, it's about global warming! not to mention, it's not scientists that are charging "2x" as much for environmentally safe products, but a capatalist society that makes money wherever it can. I mean, if you had a product that you could charge "2x" as much for, wouldn't you? - DooM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Um... you do know that the ozone hole has repaired itself (and much more rapidly than scientists thought it would) after we banned CFCs, right..? Apparently you CAN fix these things if you act rationally.
- eth3l, on 10/12/2007, -27/+19This does not make the front page but a gant iPhone ad does? WTF?
Dugg. - DankPlaces, on 10/12/2007, -37/+24Give Gore a break. His mansion in Nashville may use 20 times more energy than the average, but he has bought carbon credits from China. Every month 43,000 Chinese will hold their breath for 20 minutes a day. In addition, Al has a pledge from Michael Moore that he will not light farts in the months with an “R” in them. His movie might be scientifically challenged, but old Al’s carbon neutral!
- Sephrra, on 10/12/2007, -33/+13but Al Gore is an idiot
- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8Funny how all these elitist guys with cash are trying to get the rest of us peons to do all the energy saving and whatnot... "Do as I say, not as I do"
- zizzybaloobah, on 10/12/2007, -23/+9http://digg.com/world_news/Cooling_the_Hype_on_Global_Warming (submitted yesterday)
- deMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Informative headline > clever headline
- ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10And both are sensationalist, and use the same tactic they accuse Gore of.
- mightydavefish, on 10/12/2007, -30/+25EXAGGERATION does not mean the same thing as LIES.
So the information is essentially correct.
But not presented in the exact way the scientist in the article would like.
Can the right wing wrap their heads around the idea that going a bit too far in a claim is not the same as a lie?
But the right just LOVES sucking up to the oil industry, the major funders for the anti-warming studies, so they will now pretend this means all Al's information is wrong.
That is intellectual dishonesty.
Plus, the Al jokes are so lame. It's tough to make fun of someone trying to do good. Unless you are a GOP tool with no regard for the future.- zizzybaloobah, on 10/12/2007, -11/+44I don't believe anyone in the article was making fun of Al Gore. If anything, it's people who are sympathetic with his arguments who are concerned.
Furthermore, it's people like you, who summarily dismiss all opposing opinions as 'it's a big oil conspiracy', that make open debate on this topic impossible.
And finally, who could be more of a tool than the American public for falling for a man whose investments are wholly dependent on the panic caused by his own exaggerated claims. - hmmmok, on 10/12/2007, -12/+14These scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous.
- math20, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14But creating evidence about global warming that allows governments to gain more power while at the same time being funded by the government is perfectly ok.
- falstaff, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9"Can the right wing wrap their heads around the idea that going a bit too far in a claim is not the same as a lie?"
That's so ironic, I'm speechless. lmfao - Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Scrutiny in science is a huge part of the core ideas and ethics surrounding science. Are you saying we should believe everything that environmentalists tell us or that we should evaluate the evidence for ourselves.
I think that rather than the extreme polarisation of the global warming issue (we're going to die vs. nothing is happening) it's most likely a mixture of the two - CO2 (+ other gases such as methane and water vapour) are having an effect but it's a small one and is probably a mixture of causes including the gases. - fooplex, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Exaggeration is the same as a lie. However, the point of the article I think is that the exaggerations are not even necessary. The overall message is still valid, and the exaggerations should be removed, so as to not taint the message.
But, he's a politician. Everyone knows they like to exaggerate/lie. Anyone that listens to him should automatically know that some details are probably not true but that he believes in his overall message. Similar to another politician we all know, who shall remain nameless. - Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5........The road to hell is paved with good intentions.... And what makes you think he is trying to "do good?". What modern politician has ever tried to "do good"?
- bIuebonics, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9actually, i believe the key word is alarmism. there are distorted facts in what al gore says and in al gore's movie. global warming is an issue that needs to be taken seriously. exaggerating facts is exactly what's wrong. without a rational, level-headed approach very little gets accomplished. thanks to al gore, you have anti-anthropogenic global warming people saying "mankind has NOTHING to do with it, look: he's exaggerating and distorting the truth"; on the other side you have pro-anthropogenic global warming people saying "look, we're destroying the earth and it will be gone tomorrow, unless we do something now so that it will be all better tomorrow". in the middle you have scientist shaking their heads saying "stop" to both sides. of course, each side takes offense and proclaims these scientists in the middle as being part of the opposing party. both poles of this debate are entirely unfounded, the last thing you need is yet another unqualified person (al gore) spouting out what is equivalent to propaganda. it's all ridiculous.
- zizzybaloobah, on 10/12/2007, -11/+44I don't believe anyone in the article was making fun of Al Gore. If anything, it's people who are sympathetic with his arguments who are concerned.
- skyfire1, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7Remember, Manbearpig is very dangerous. I'm super serial!
- madeingermany, on 10/12/2007, -14/+5Did anybody watch Gore's Oscar-winning movie (An Inconvenient Truth)?
It's unbearable! I actually think that you have to exaggerate a little to wake up some people (especially the ones that think it's all his will, if we drown in melting ice), but does it have to be that boring?- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4So now people need to exaggerate? What is this world coming to...............
- bIuebonics, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4you mean the propaganda movie? if you need to exaggerate and make unfounded claims, then you really have to question the importance of what's at the root of these exaggerations. IF global warming is so serious, then why does al gore HAVE to exaggerate? (before those of you who are hippie-liberal-douche diggers digg me down, please pay attention to the if)
- madeingermany, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Of course you'll use the high end of the projections, if you want to make your issue heard.
If the opponents of the Global Warming debate fund a study, it will surely use the lower end.
That's why I'm saying you have to exaggerate, - theodicey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't think exaggeration means what you think it means.
A fundamental principle of risk analysis is that you have to consider ALL the possible scenarios: their probability, and how bad they are.
Scientists just don't know the probability of, say, a 30 foot sea level rise, although they know that Antarctica and Greenland are slowly collapsing right now.
Unknown probability x major catastrophe = high risk, worth taking some precautions. That's why Gore discusses that scenario in his movie.
- catchphrase, on 10/12/2007, -19/+21I can't believe the truth about Al Gore has hit the front page. That is fantastic. The rest of the truth can be seen here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=global+warming+swindle&hl=en
Catch- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9Good video!
- schwit, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Great video. But I suspect those with a closed mind won't watch it.
- scom, on 10/12/2007, -18/+13Weak article, weak topic
DIGG down- j10s, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8or are you a hippie?
- BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -12/+9The lead for the sheep. Dont read it just digg down Bah Bah Bah.
Screw you Scom. If the plant is importnat READ the article and get educated on what are the BEST possible options on balancing a path to the future.
Typical Leftist Moron. - shmatt, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Typical Fox News watcher. Yell and call names and ignore the meat of the argument. Do you know if Scom actaully read the article? No, you do not. But you disagree and call him names anyway, just because you THINK he is on the "other side."
Facts are so 'inconveneint' for you wingnuts.
- pujolsthebeast, on 10/12/2007, -17/+8When all scientists who disagree with Gore's "alarmism" are under water, we'll see who's talking.
- hmmmok, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12clever. We won't hear them underwater...
- JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6[smartass] Actually water is way better transporting sound than air! [/smartass] ;-)
- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Can I borrow your time machine for awhile? Oh wait, actually I can just borrow it and return in at the same time....
- mroffroad, on 10/12/2007, -14/+8"When all scientists who disagree with Gore's "alarmism" are under water, we'll see who's talking."
^^ STFU... Gore is an idiot and a puppet... AL GORE LIES 2008! - person51090, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4I are upset with your grammar.
- br0ck, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Let the debunking begin: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/broad-irony/
- expatriot, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10Hey lemmings, you better shut up and pay that global warming tax. We all know how you lemmings believe that money will solve all your problems and buy you happiness, so if you shell out all your labor and money to fighting global warming, maybe you can make the sun burn less brightly.
LOL!!!111```~one- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10"Hey lemmings, you better shut up and pay that global warming tax."
This is Digg, so it's more like: Hey lemmings, you better shut up and make the rich pay that global warming tax. - expatriot, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Make the rich pay? Haha! Is that like making Cheney or Bush serve in Iraq?
LOL!!! you crack me up!!! get back to work! - DryvBy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4No, it's like Clinton not dodging a draft!
- shmatt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1excuse me, but did Cheney ever serve in combat? No? Bush Jr.? No, huh? How about Wolfowitz, Rove, Condy Rice? No, they did not-- I rest my case.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10"Hey lemmings, you better shut up and pay that global warming tax."
- lostboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15This article does not lambaste Al Gore, it presents a complete picture of the scientific community and the many varied feelings about him. It seems to me that for the whole the article suggests that Al Gore is actually viewed as a positive force by scientists, however some have issues with some of his science. The article suggests that there is no more polarizing figure amongst climate scientists at the moment, and this seems to be very true.
It comes down to this, what is your politic? This is never just a matter of science, it *is* a matter of what you believe to be true. I happen to believe in Global Warming and that we are in large responsible for it, as such I do my part to make sure I don't make it worse. I don't need Al Gore to tell me that, however I'm grateful that someone with such a strong voice and presence can fight for something that I believe is important.- Atomike, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6"I happen to believe in Global Warming and that we are in large responsible for it"
Then you believe in something without any scientific evidence to back it up.
The earth may be warming, however contrary to what you have heard, there is not a shred of evidence to demonstrate that man has anything to do with this process. Since there was more CO2 in the atmosphere during the industrial revolution with no warming, I think it's safe to say that the evidence DISPROVES your position.
I take it you believe in the tooth fairy as well?- BeavisMcSleavis, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1Wow...you really are nuts!
Hats off to you for staying true to your causes though....I guess.
- BeavisMcSleavis, on 11/18/2007, -0/+1Wow...you really are nuts!
- realitybias, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Wrong. There is more CO2 now than then. Do you people seriously just pull this stuff out of your ass?
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_History_and_Flux_Rev_png - lostboy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7actually I *do* believe in the tooth fairy, and I know for a fact he's coming for your molars. He was carrying a pair of pliers. I gotta say that a 7 foot man in a pink tutu is an odd sight to behold. Sleep lightly.
As for Global Warming, I've seen enough scientific evidence (ignoring anything in An Inconvenient Truth) to make me believe in it. Can you climate sceptics say that your scepticism comes entirely from a scientific basis, that you are taking an absolutely neutral stance and letting the science do the talking? - Atomike, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Yes. Science alone. Liberals do not understand facts therefore the debate continues. Also, the "chart" of CO2 - how about if you get some facts from a non-global-warming site? What do you THINK they are going to say? Yikes.
- realitybias, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7By a non global warming site, do you mean...
Keeling, C.D. and T.P. Whorf (2004) "Atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network" in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
?
Try again. You didn't get that many gold stars growing up as a kid, did you? - lostboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Yes. Science alone. Liberals do not understand facts therefore the debate continues."
Er, how is this taking a strictly scientific stance? Firstly you suggest that if someone believes in climate change they must be a liberal, secondly you suggest that simply by being a liberal people instantly do not have the facts.
The 'facts' in this case being a consensus that you agree with.
Plainly you are not simply speaking from just a scientific POV and have let your personal politics influence what you believe - Well guess what, you are no different to me, but we stand on different sides of the fence.
At least I have the guts to admit that there is bias in my claims, further to that I would suggest that bias is inherent in science because at the end of the day it is being performed by people who are using it to their own ends. That's why I believe in more than just science, I believe in doing what I think is morally and ethically right. To me, you stink of the narcissism of the right who think the earth has been given to them as a little bauble to do with as they will, and ***** anyone who says otherwise.
- Atomike, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6"I happen to believe in Global Warming and that we are in large responsible for it"
- thentro, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5I agree with this headline, there is only one scientist who is upset with Al Gore.
- Sneakernets, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9the rest are laughing at him.
- CrimsonBlur, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Someone at work came busting in the door today ecstatic to use this as proof to say Gore is a moron and global warming is a lie. However, they didn't actually read the article, a radio show lifted quotes to prove their point. Obviously not many people responding here have actually read the article either. Here's an email I sent to my coworkers about the subject:
It’s interesting to read this article with the perspective of someone like **** in mind (i was later reminded she didn't actually read the article, but it's still relevant). By the end of the article it is clear that while it is conceded that the movie does contain some factual inaccuracies and over exaggerations, the overall concept of the movie is still correct. It’s also interesting to note that while there are critics out there, it’s made clear in the replies to their arguments by other scientists that their claims are by far in the minority, and most “reasonable” scientists, as one puts it, disagree with their claims. People hear what they want to hear I guess.- DryvBy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Just to let you know, I am doing my part, man. I'm leaving on all my lights and driving more than ever. It may take otu of my paycheck, but knowing that you'll soon be underwater drowning is well worth it. Jerks and punks rule.
- theodicey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And some people only hear what Rush Limbaugh tells them to hear.
- guillermox, on 10/12/2007, -11/+22Al Gore said Global Warming was "the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced."
*EVER FACED*
You tell me, using your own brain, if that's alarmist or not.- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Well... the dinosaurs only had to worry about those pesky space rocks... They didn't get off their lazy asses and create an anti-spacerock defense system like they should have... they were "deniers" of spacerocks...
ha! - DryvBy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Funny, a guy that backed Clinton after screwing all those women is talking about morals.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I thought prayer in school was one of them
and uh God in general
hows what a bunch of scientist have to say spirtuallly alarming besides evolution of course because it fights with the belief that god did it with words not self replicating dna (im not sure how self replecating dna would work so whatever) - theodicey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As far as serious threats to worldwide civilization, it's a pretty close race between global warming and global thermonuclear war during the early part of the Cold war.
Both will ruin most of the major cities in the world. In one scenario, everyone gets killed in the cities. In the other, people mostly escape the cities, but then they kill each other over land and water, or die from epidemics, or nuke each other.
But I'm making assumptions. I don't know what more important issue you have in mind. Maybe you're terrified by the Mongol horde?
- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Well... the dinosaurs only had to worry about those pesky space rocks... They didn't get off their lazy asses and create an anti-spacerock defense system like they should have... they were "deniers" of spacerocks...
- sysoprock, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13I thought the pro-marijuana guys were the only ones responsible for front page headlines containing blatant misspellings and grammatical errors.
It's good to see the Conservatives giving them a run for their money. - djiivu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I want to clarify to some that this article takes no issue with global warming, but rather with Al Gore's presentation of its effects.
- Sneakernets, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7If Al Gore is right, The only people that aren't responsible for global warming in America are the Amish.
Which makes him a hypocrite.
I don't care who Al Gore thinks he is, but until people like Gore actually practice what they preach, I will not listen to one word of it.- BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8Watching you get dugg down because you know the TRUTH about the man behind "an Inconvenient truth".
It is so ironic.
GLOBAL WARMING IS NOTHING BUT LEFTIST FEAR MONGERING. - rhettnyedotorg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you guys are both fags and i'll get dugg down too. you have no point.
- BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8Watching you get dugg down because you know the TRUTH about the man behind "an Inconvenient truth".
- Mobius2112, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Just watched "The Great Global Warming Swindle".
Given the press, was hoping for a balanced view of things.
Turns out 2 wrongs make a right as the same fear pimping and hyperbole that makes extreme environmentalism unpalatable is used in a disappointing attempt to refute it.
To be pro-environment, you must be anti-human. *****...
I don't think we'll ever have an objective, spin free discussion of global warming. And that's too bad. - trakais, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Exaggeration is sometimes the only way to make people hear you. Exaggeration does not mean lie.
- Sneakernets, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Exaggeration: the act of doing or representing in an excessive manner; a going beyond the bounds of truth, reason, or justice; a hyperbolical representation; hyperbole; overstatement.
That's not lying? - DryvBy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Liberals don't even know what the word "is" is. Don't confuse them with bigger words.
- Sneakernets, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Exaggeration: the act of doing or representing in an excessive manner; a going beyond the bounds of truth, reason, or justice; a hyperbolical representation; hyperbole; overstatement.
- OMightyColumbia, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3Reading the comments simply set in stone my realization that digg is nothing more than a playground for hippies. It also further proves that very few people on the internet have the mental capacity to grasp a topic as complicated and overwhelming as climate change.
- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5The inconvenient truth of Al Gore is he scams you and me by paying for his massive electricity bill with carbon credits... Someone needs to tell that loser to turn off some lightbulbs and the TV now and then... save some for the rest of us.
- wendelgee2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Ok ok...so Gore should concede that there is a slim chance that there are other factors also affecting the situation
Will the Right likewise concede that there is a slim chance that manmade causes are NOT a factor?- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I don't think you said what you meant to say.....
- eradicator, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3English teacher are upset with your bad grammar.
- NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6Al says: "The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger”
WHich is a really freaking clever way to make it sound like everyone agrees with his sky-is-falling scenario, without actually coming right out and saying it. What a master weasel.
-jcr - Sinn3r, on 10/12/2007, -15/+9I've just finished reading a skeptics guide to an inconvenient truth.
Summary of Distortions
One Sided
AIT:
• Never acknowledges the environmental, health, and economic benefits of climatic
warmth and the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content.
• Never acknowledges the major role of natural variability in shrinking the Snows
of Kilimanjaro and other mountain glaciers.
• Never mentions the 1976 regime shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), a
major cause of recent climate change in Alaska.
• Never confronts a key implication of its assumption that climate is highly
sensitive to CO2 emissions—left to its own devices, global climate would be
rapidly deteriorating into another ice age.
• Neglects to mention that, due to the growth of urban heat islands, U.S. cities and
towns will continually break temperature records, with or without help from
global warming.
• Neglects to mention that global warming could reduce the severity of wintertime
(frontal storms) by decreasing the temperature differential between colliding air
masses.
• Ignores the large role of natural variability in Arctic climate, never mentioning
that Arctic temperatures in the 1930s equaled or exceeded those of the late 20th
century, and that the Arctic during the early- to mid-Holocene was significantly
warmer than it is today.
• Fosters the impression that global warming can only be good for bad things
(algae, ticks) and bad for good things (polar bears, migratory birds)—nature
according to a morality play.
• Cites Velicogna and Wahr (2006), who found an overall loss in Antarctic ice mass
during 2002-2005, but ignores Davis et al. (2005), who found an overall ice mass
gain during 1992-2003. Three years worth of data is too short to tell anything
about a trend in a system as vast and complex as Antarctica.
• Cites Turner et al. (2006), who found a 0.5°C to 0.7°C per decade wintertime
warming trend in the mid-troposphere above Antarctica, as measured by weather
balloons, but neglects to mention that Turner et al. found much less warming—
about 0.15°C/decade—at the Antarctic surface, or that NASA satellites, which
also measure troposphere temperatures, show a 0.12°C/decade Antarctic cooling
trend since November 1978.
• Shows a picture of a garbage-strewn refuse dump in Mexico City to illustrate the
“collision between our civilization and the Earth”—as if blight and swill were the
hallmarks of mankind’s interaction with nature.
• Sees “success” in the recent reduction of global population growth rates, not in
the fossil-energy-based civilization that has enabled mankind to increase its
numbers more than six-fold since the dawn of the industrial revolution.
• Compares Haiti (deforestation) and the Dominican Republic (lush forest cover) to
illustrate the impact of politics on the environment, but does not mention another
94
key implication of the comparison: Poverty is the environment’s number one
enemy.
• Notes that “much forest destruction” and “almost 30%” of annual CO2 emissions
come from “the burning of brushland for subsistence agriculture and wood fires
used for cooking,” but never considers whether fossil energy restrictions would
set back developing countries both economically and environmentally.
• Neglects to mention the circumstances that make it reasonable rather than
blameworthy for America to be the biggest CO2 emitter: the world’s largest
economy, high per capita incomes, abundant fossil energy resources, markets
integrated across continental distances, and the world’s most highly mobile
population.
• Impugns the motives of so-called global warming skeptics but never
acknowledges the special-interest motivations of those whose research grants,
direct mail income, industrial policy privileges, regulatory power, prosecutorial
plunder, or political careers depend on keeping the public in a state of fear about
global warming.
• Castigates former White House official Phil Cooney for editing U.S. Government
climate change policy documents, without ever considering the scientific merits
of Cooney’s editing.
• Waxes enthusiastic about cellulosic ethanol, a product with no commercial
application despite 30 years of government-funded research, and neglects to
mention that corn-based ethanol, a product in commercial use for a century, is still
more costly than regular gasoline despite oil prices exceeding $70 a barrel.
• Misrepresents the auto companies’ position in their lawsuit to overturn
California’s CO2 emissions law, neglecting to mention that CO2 standards are de
facto fuel economy standards and that federal law prohibits states from regulating
fuel economy.
• Blames Detroit’s financial troubles on the Big Three’s high-volume production of
SUVs, even though U.S. automakers probably would not even exist today had
they been “ahead of their time” and emphasized Kyoto-friendly vehicles in the
1990s. AIT says nothing about the biggest cause of Detroit’s falling
capitalization—unaffordable payments for employee benefit packages negotiated
decades ago.
• Touts Denmark’s wind farms without mentioning any of the well-known
drawbacks of wind power: cost, intermittency, avian mortality, site depletion, and
scenic degradation.
• Never addresses the obvious criticism that the Kyoto Protocol is all pain for no
gain and tougher policies would be a “cure” worse than the alleged disease.
• Claims a study by Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala (S&P) shows that
“affordable” technologies could reduce U.S. carbon emissions below 1970 levels,
even though S&P specifically say their study does not estimate costs. AIT also
neglects to mention that S&P’s study is a response to Hoffert et al. (2002), a team
of 18 energy experts, who concluded that, “CO2 is a combustion product vital to
how civilization is powered; it cannot be regulated away.”
95
Misleading
AIT:
• Implies that, throughout the past 650,000 years, changes in CO2 levels preceded
and largely caused changes in global temperature, whereas the causality mostly
runs the other way, with CO2 changes trailing global temperature changes by
hundreds to thousands of years.
• Distracts readers from the main hurricane problem facing the United States: the
ever-growing concentration of population and wealth in vulnerable coastal
regions.
• Ignores the societal factors that typically overwhelm climatic factors in
determining people’s risk of damage or death from hurricanes, floods, drought,
tornadoes, wildfires, and disease.
• Implies that the 2006 tropical cyclone season in Australia was unusually active
and, thus, symptomatic of global warming. In contrast, NOAA describes the
season as “near average.”
• Cites increases in insurance payments to victims of hurricanes, floods, drought,
tornadoes, wildfires, and other natural disasters as evidence of a global-warming
ravaged planet, even though the increases are chiefly due to socioeconomic
factors such as population growth and development in high risk coastal areas and
cities.
• Re-labels as “major floods” (a category defined by physical magnitude) a chart of
“damaging floods” (a category defined by socioeconomic and political criteria).
• Re-labels as “major wildfires” (a category defined by physical magnitude) a chart
of “recorded wildfires” (a category reflecting changes in data collection and
reporting, such as increases in the frequency and scope of satellite monitoring).
• Blames global warming for the decline “since the 1960s” of the Emperor Penguin
population in Antarctica, implying that the penguins are in peril, their numbers
dwindling as the world warms. In fact, the population declined in the 1970s and
has been stable since the late 1980s.
• Implies that a study, which found that none of 928 science articles (actually
abstracts) denied a CO2-global warming link, shows that Gore’s apocalyptic view
of global warming is the “consensus” view among scientists.
• Reports that 48 Nobel Prize-winning scientists accused Bush of distorting science,
without mentioning that the scientists acted as members of a 527 group set up to
promote the Kerry for President Campaign.
Exaggerated
AIT:
• Exaggerates the certainty and hypes importance of the alleged link between global
warming and the frequency and severity of tropical storms.
• Hypes the importance of NOAA running out of names (21 per year) for Atlantic
hurricanes in 2005, and the fact that some storms continued into December. The
practice of naming storms only goes back to 1953, and hurricane detection
capabilities have improved dramatically since the 1950s, so the “record” number
of named storms in 2005 may be an artifact of the data. Also, Atlantic hurricanes
96
continued into December in several previous years including 1878, 1887, and
1888.
• Never explains why anyone should be alarmed about the current Arctic warming,
considering that our stone-age ancestors survived (and likely benefited from) the
much stronger and longer Arctic warming known as the Holocene Climate
Optimum.
• Portrays the cracking of the Ward Hunt ice shelf in 2002 as a portent of doom,
even though the shelf was merely a remnant of a much larger Arctic ice formation
that had already lost 90% of its area during 1906-1982.
• Claims polar bears “have been drowning in significant numbers,” based on a
report that found four drowned polar bears in one month in one year, following an
abrupt storm.
• Claims global warming is creating “ecological niches” for “invasive alien
species,” never mentioning other, more important factors such as increases in
trade, tourism, and urban heat islands. For example, due to population growth,
Berlin warmed twice as much during 1886-1898 as the IPCC estimates the entire
world warmed in the 20th century.
• Blames global warming for pine beetle infestations that likely have more to do
with increased forest density and plain old mismanagement.
• Links global warming to toxic algae bloom outbreaks in the Baltic Sea that can be
entirely explained by record-high phosphorus levels, record-low nitrogen-tophosphorus
levels, and local meteorological conditions.
• Portrays the collapse in 2002 of the Larson-B ice shelf—a formation the “size of
Rhode Island”—as harbinger of doom. For perspective, the Larson-B was 180th
the size of Texas and 1/246th the size of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS).
• Warns that the break-off of floating ice shelves like the Larson B accelerates the
flow of land-based ice behind them. However, researchers found that the speedup
was not observable beyond about 10 km inland, and that decelerations occurred
only one year later.
• Presents a graph suggesting that China’s new fuel economy standards are almost
30% more stringent than the current U.S. standards. In fact, the Chinese standards
are only about 5% more stringent.
Speculative
AIT:
• Warns of impending water shortages in Asia due to global warming but does not
check whether there is any correlation between CO2 levels and Eurasian snow
cover (there isn’t). Also, if Tibetan glaciers melt, that should increase water
availability in the coming decades.
• Claims that CO2 concentrations in the Holocene never rose above 300 ppm in
pre-industrial times, and that the current level (380 ppm) is “way above” the range
of natural variability. Proxy data indicate that, in the early Holocene, CO2 levels
exceeded 330 ppm for centuries and reached 348 ppm.
• Claims that a Scripps Oceanography Institute study shows that ocean
temperatures during the past 40 years are “way above the range of natural
97
variability.” Proxy data indicate that the Atlantic Ocean was warmer than present
during several periods over the past 2,500 years.
• Blames global warming for the record number of typhoons hitting Japan in 2004.
Local meteorological conditions, not average global temperatures, determine the
trajectory of particular storms, and data going back to 1950 show no correlation
between North Pacific storm activity and CO2 levels.
• Blames global warming for the record-breaking 37-inch downpour in Mumbai,
India, in July 2005, even though there has been no trend in Mumbai rainfall for
the month of July in 45 years.
• Blames global warming for recent floods in China’s Sichuan and Shandong
provinces, even though far more damaging floods struck those areas in the 19th
and early 20th centuries.
• Blames global warming for the disappearance of Lake Chad, a disaster stemming
from a combination of regional climate variability and societal factors such as
population increase and overgrazing.
• Claims global warming is drying out soils all over the world, whereas pan
evaporation studies indicate that, in general, the Earth’s surface is becoming
wetter.
• Presents one climate model’s projection of increased U.S. drought as authoritative
even though another leading model forecasts increased wetness, climate model
hydrology forecasts on regional scales are notoriously unreliable, and most of the
United States (outside the Southwest) became wetter during 1925-2003.
• Blames global warming for the severe drought that hit the Amazon in 2005.
RealClimate.Org, a web site set up to debunk global warming “skeptics,”
concluded that it is not possible to link the drought to global warming.
• Warns of a positive feedback whereby CO2-induced warming melts tundra,
releasing more CO2 locked up in frozen soils. An alternative scenario is also
plausible: The range of carbon-storing vegetation expands as tundra thaws.
• Describes global warming as a threat to polar bears even though polar bear
populations are increasing in Arctic areas where it is warming and declining in
Arctic areas where it is cooling.
• Blames global warming for Alaska’s “drunken trees” (trees rooted in previously
frozen tundra, which sway in all directions as the ice melts), ignoring the possibly
large role of the 1976 PDO shift.
• Blames rising CO2 levels for recent declines in Arctic sea ice, ignoring the
potentially large role of natural variability. AIT never mentions that wind pattern
shifts may account for much of the observed changes in sea ice, or that the
Canadian Arctic Archipelago had considerably less sea ice during the early
Holocene.
• Warns that meltwater from Greenland could disrupt the Atlantic thermohaline
circulation based on research indicating that a major disruption occurred 8,200
years ago when a giant ice dam burst in North America, allowing two lakes to
drain rapidly into the sea. AIT does not mention that the lakes injected more than
100,000 cubic kilometers of freshwater into the sea, whereas Greenland ice melt
contributes a few hundred cubic kilometers a year.
98
• Claims global warming is “disrupting millions of delicately balanced ecological
relationships among species” based on a study showing that, in the Netherlands,
caterpillars are hatching earlier than the arrival of caterpillar-eating migratory
birds. AIT neglects to mention that the “gap” between the schedules of the
caterpillars and the birds “has had no demonstrable effect” on the bird population
over the past 20 years.
• Warns that global warming is destroying coral reefs, even though today’s main
reef builders evolved and thrived during periods substantially warmer than the
present.
• Warns that a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels to 560 ppm will so acidify
seawater that all optimal areas for coral reef construction will disappear by 2050.
This is not plausible. Coral calcification rates have increased as ocean
temperatures and CO2 levels have risen, and today’s main reef builders evolved
and thrived during the Mesozoic Period, when atmospheric CO2 levels hovered
above 1,000 ppm for 150 million years and exceeded 2,000 ppm for several
million years.
• Asserts without evidence that global warming is causing more tick-borne disease
(TBD). An Oxford University study found no relationship between climate
change and TBD in Europe.
• Blames global warming for the resurgence of malaria in Kenya, even though
several studies found no climate link and attribute the problem to decreased
spraying of homes with DDT, anti-malarial drug resistance, and incompetent
public health programs.
• Insinuates that global warming is a factor in the emergence of some 30 “new”
diseases over the last three decades, but cites no supporting research or evidence.
• Blames global warming for the decline “since the 1960s” of the Emperor Penguin
population in Antarctica based on a speculative assessment by two researchers
that warm sea temperatures in the 1970s reduced the birds’ main food source. An
equally plausible explanation is that Antarctic ecotourism, which became popular
in the 1970s, disturbed the rookeries.
• Cites the growing number of Thames River barrier closings as evidence of global
warming-induced sea level rise, even though UK authorities close the barriers to
keep water in as well as to keep tidal surges out.
• Warns of “significant and alarming structural changes” in the submarine base of
WAIS, but does not tell us what those changes are or why they are “significant
and alarming.” The melting and retreat of the WAIS “grounding line” has been
going on since the early Holocene. At the rate of retreat observed in the late
1990s, the WAIS should disappear in about 7,000 years.
• Warns that vertical water tunnels (“moulins”) are lubricating the Greenland Ice
Sheet, increasing the risk that it will “slide” into the sea. Summertime glacier flow
acceleration associated with moulins is tiny. Moulins in numbers equal to or
surpassing those observed today probably occurred in the first half of the 20th
century, when Greenland was as warm as or warmer than the past decade, with no
major loss of grounded ice.
Suck it hippies! - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12The 1st photo shows Al Gore in front of a screen showing a hurricane from 2005 (which got a lot of media attention). Would any real scientist stoop to this level of manipulation of data? Perhaps Al Gore can show us the evidence linking that hurricane to global warming, and then explain why he has no 2006 hurricanes to project on the screen.
- hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Al Gore should have explained why there weren't as many hurricanes as predicted in 2006 when he filmed this in 2005. Excellent point.
- EComni, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I hate this selective one-upping and willful ignorance, on both sides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Chanchu_(2006) - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Researchers are finding that Saharan dust storms containing tiny specks of dust are linked to suppressed hurricane activity in the Atlantic.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2719.htm
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/315/5817/1351a
As EComni points out, the world is bigger than just the US. - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8It does need to be explicitly noted that single local events do not prove or disprove a global trend.
- EComni, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6And Gore did explain, quite weakly I might add, in a followup interview that global warming correlates to strength of hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones, not their frequency.
I liked the documentary enough, but I think I would've felt more compelled (and it would have been more compelling) if there were genuine scientists talking. I thought his evidence was well-presented and I do believe that global warming is real, but I don't think I'd ever trust a politician to present it in the best manner. - theodicey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The 2006 Hurricane season was accompanied by a moderate El Nino event...But El Ninos come and go--more or less randomly--from year to year. The overall trend in named tropical Atlantic storms in recent decades is undeniably positive. We can have honest debates about the long-term data quality, but not if we start out by misrepresenting the data we do have, as Broad chooses to."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/broad-irony/#more-419
- Sinn3r, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7here's some stuff he's apparently just wrong about
AIT:
• Claims glaciologist Lonnie Thompson’s reconstruction of climate history proves
the Medieval Warm Period was “tiny” compared to the warming observed in
recent decades. It doesn’t. Four of Thompson’s six ice cores indicate the Medieval
Warm Period was warmer than any recent decade.
• Calls carbon dioxide (CO2) the “most important greenhouse gas.” Water vapor is
the leading contributor to the greenhouse effect.
• Claims Venus is too hot and Mars too cold to support life due to differences in
atmospheric CO2 concentrations (they are nearly identical), rather than to
differences in atmospheric densities and distances from the Sun (both huge).
• Claims scientists have validated the “Hockey Stick” climate reconstruction,
according to which the 1990s were likely the warmest decade of the past
millennium and 1998 the warmest year. It is now widely acknowledged that the
Hockey Stick was built on a flawed methodology and inappropriate data.
Scientists continue to debate whether the Medieval Warm period was warmer
than recent decades.
• Tacitly assumes that CO2 levels are increasing at roughly 1 percent annually. The
actual rate is half that.
• Tacitly assumes a linear relationship between CO2 levels and global
temperatures, whereas the actual CO2-warming effect is logarithmic, meaning
that the next 100-ppm increase adds only half as much heat as the previous 100-
ppm increase.
• Claims the rate of global warming is accelerating, whereas the rate has been
constant for the past 30 years—roughly 0.17°C/decade.
• Blames global warming for Europe’s killer heat wave of 2003—an event caused
by an atmospheric circulation anomaly.
• Blames global warming for Hurricane Catarina, the first South Atlantic hurricane
on record, which struck Brazil in 2004. Catarina formed not because the South
Atlantic was unusually warm (sea temperatures were cooler than normal), but
because the air was so much colder it produced the same kind of heat flux from
the ocean that fuels hurricanes in warmer waters.
• Claims that 2004 set an all-time record for the number of tornadoes in the United
States. Tornado frequency has not increased; rather, the detection of smaller
tornadoes has increased. If we consider the tornadoes that have been detectable
for many decades (F-3 or greater), there is actually a downward trend since 1950.
100
• Blames global warming for a “mass extinction crisis” that is not, in fact,
occurring.
• Blames global warming for the rapid coast-to-coast spread of the West Nile virus.
North America contains nearly all the climate types in the world—from hot, dry
deserts to boreal forests, to frigid tundra—a range that dwarfs any small alteration
in temperature or precipitation that may be related to atmospheric CO2 levels.
The virus could not have spread so far so fast, if it were climate-sensitive.
• Cites Tuvalu, Polynesia, as a place where rising sea levels force residents to
evacuate their homes. In reality, sea levels at Tuvalu fell during the latter half of
the 20th century and even during the 1990s, allegedly the warmest decade of the
millennium.
• Claims sea level rise could be many times larger and more rapid “depending on
the choices we make or do not make now” concerning global warming. Not so.
The most aggressive choice America could make now would be to join Europe in
implementing the Kyoto Protocol. Assuming the science underpinning Kyoto is
correct, the treaty would avert only 1 cm of sea level rise by 2050 and 2.5 cm by
2100.
• Accuses Exxon Mobil of running a “disinformation campaign” designed to
“reposition global warming as theory, rather than fact,” even though two clicks of
the mouse reveal that Exxon Mobil acknowledges global warming as a fact.
• Claims Bush hired Phil Cooney to “be in charge” of White House environmental
policy. This must be a surprise to White House Council on Environmental Quality
Chairman James Connaughton, who hired Cooney and was his boss at the CEQ.
• Claims the European Union’s emission trading system (ETS) is working
“effectively.” In fact, the ETS is not reducing emissions, has transferred £1.5
billion from U.K. firms to competitors in countries with weaker controls, has
enabled oil companies to profit at the expense of hospitals and schools, and has
been an administrative nightmare for small firms.
• Claims U.S. firms won’t be able to sell American-made cars in China because
Beijing has set higher fuel economy standards. This is equivalent to saying U.S.
firms won’t be able to sell cars in India until all U.S.-made cars are built to drive
on the left side of the road.- hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7@sinn3r: Is there any way you could make your cut-and-paste propaganda posts longer? Please regale us with another "War and Peace" length post that you cribbed from some anti-Gore Web site. I know that you didn't read this stuff yourself, and you feel that the quantity of your argument equals the quality of argument, so posting another few thousands words should be no problem for you.
- Sinn3r, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Ad Hominem attacks aside I clearly mentioned the source "The skeptics guide to an inconvenient truth" which is not an anti-gore website.
Also I didn't realise you personally payed for the bandwidth, if you don't then SHUT THE ***** UP! - hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@sinn3r : I shouldn't have made it personal. I apologize for the Ad Hominem.
My beef wasn't with your point (although I do disagree), but with the length. No one is going to read a post that long. No one. If you want to submit that much information, you should submit it as it's own link. - Sinn3r, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4once again this was from a book NOT a website so linking to it was impossible. Admitantly it was an e-book, so copying and pasting was possible.
If you don't want to read lengthy coments then don't, I noticed however you got awfully far down the page before getting to mine and posting, perhaps you just scrolled down looking for the largest post to have a go at?
The reason I posted so much was to refute alot of the claims made by people that any innacuracies made by Gore were trivial. In this case quantity really can add weight to an argument when showing just how misleading that book/documentry was. - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@sinn3r
How does a self-appointed celebrity spokesperson getting details wrong refute a scientific theory? - hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@sinn3r : No, the extra volume does not add weight to your argument. I could find a list that extensive that "proves" the government was behind 9/11. The size of their very long list doesn't do anything to persuade me that their point is valid. It would take forever to research all of these points, but that doesn't mean they are correct. If you are responding to a specific argument made earlier in the thread, copy just the relevant section as a reply to the original post.
As a point of fact, I didn't even Digg you down -- I reserve that for people who are rude or intentionally lying -- but you sank like a stone. Why? Because your comments are too long. You aren't furthering the discussion because a gigantic list of bulleted points is really hard to respond to. And why should anyone bother? These aren't your thoughts or ideas; it's a giant cut-and-paste from your "eBook." So you are ignored and/or modded down.
You can argue the point all you want, but I think the results speak for themselves. People don't want to read small novels in the comments section.
- truthmaster, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10First, Al Gore sets up a company and becomes chairman that will invest in other companies that will benefit from global warming alarmism
Second, Gore gets some Hollywood types to fund and produce a movie designed to scare the c-c-carbon out of the population
Third, Gore travels the world promoting this movie, while pushing the view that a cataclysm is imminent if the world doesn't immediately act
Fourth, an adoring media falls for the con hook, line, and sinker. Rather than debunking the flaws in the theories, the media promote every word of it while advancing the concept that Gore's views represent those of an overwhelming majority of scientists
Fifth, scared governments and citizens across the globe invest in alternative energy programs driving up the shares of companies Gore's group has already invested in
Sixth, Gore and his cronies make billions as they laugh all the way to the bank at the stupidity of their fellow citizens- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Bah! That makes no sense! You are obviously a denier!
/sarcasm
- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Bah! That makes no sense! You are obviously a denier!
- goingmobile, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8Let me sum up how retarded this farce is for all the followers and do goodies. At some point in this farce, Mr Gore shows a chart that depicts the many warming/ice age periods. Simply put, you are going to be wiped from the face of this earth and forgotten about including your time capsules. Global warming is simply a gimmick to cut the throats and ream out the assholes of greedy big oil, and to speed up adoption of alternate energy, while figuring out a way to tax the sun. Oh and just to throw something out there, has anyone even given thought to the many volcanoes spewing into the ocean daily, creating rising waters, killing off people and land silently. and you thought you made a difference, lmfao. Go buy a MAC.
- fatfinger, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5It looks like Fox News is now on DIGG!
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10So now the New York Times is Fox News? Just how far left is DIgg if The New York Times is to the right of it?
- techweenie, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4The headline of the DIGG is not reflected in the referenced arrticle. Scientists quoted are mainly in agreement with Gore's claims.
- diggablog, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3[quote]He said that after 30 years of trying to communicate the dangers of global warming, “I think that I’m finally getting a little better at it.”[/quote]
More Gore lies --- thirty years ago all the hypsters and hucksters were warning about another ice age, go look at the global temperature charts to see for yourself. Look at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/perspectives.html and pretend it's 1976 --- what do you see?- fatfinger, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6I see the bigger picture that Gore is trying to make a difference and you're not.
- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Thats true... his trying to make a difference in his checking account. As global warming hype goes up, so does his revenue stream. You are simply a denier if you think any different.
- fatfinger, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6I see the bigger picture that Gore is trying to make a difference and you're not.
- expatriot, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6Don't forget that to deny global warming is akin to denying the holocaust. And yes, this trumps your silly notion of freedom of speech.
quote:I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...itical_climate/
quote:One Australian columnist has proposed outlawing ‘climate change denial’. ‘David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial’, she wrote.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/
quote:An Inconvenient Truth, starring Al Gore, a man who believes that the threat posed by the internal combustion engine is not only the gravest peril mankind faces, but that defeating it is a moral imperative equal to stopping the Holocaust.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?...TViM2Q1ZWM5ODA=
Silly lemmings.- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Funny that there was a huge fuss about global warming
and then it turned out to be a late winter
with below 30 with windchill temperatures (at least where I live) - DryvBy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4What's more funny: Al Gore makes a movie about global warming, the weather in the states ends up being constantly cold. I'm in TX and it's 50 degrees right now. Eefin GLOBAL WARMINGZ!!!
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Funny that there was a huge fuss about global warming
- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"If you don't give us your money and do what we tell you, you will die a horrible death by global warming!!"
"If you don't give us your money and do what we tell you, you will die a horrible death by and angry invisible voice in the sky! (aka God)"
Haven't we been through this before? I'm bored........... - Philodox, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Alarmism got America to go to war with Iraq and just look how well that turned out.
- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Good point... I think its because we usually let the TV do our thinking for us.
Drink Pepsi! - Philodox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You raise a good point, what do you say to people who have a pro-Coke agenda?
- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Well its obvious from all the blogs I read that only the Right wingers drink Coke, and by law of the web Right=wrong. And the Coke cans are red, and we all know that Satan=red. So anyone that drinks Coke worships Satan and wears their mom's undergarments.
Hey I'm getting pretty good at this! I should make a blog!
- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Good point... I think its because we usually let the TV do our thinking for us.
- WindyT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Did a bunch of deserting Hessians really walk across 12 miles of ice on Long Island Sound to CT during the Revolutionary War?
- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I wasn't there, sorry.
- hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The Gulf Stream usually takes the warm water from the equator and pumps it north, which raises temperatures in the U.S., Canada and Europe. When it stopped doing this, those areas experienced a "mini-Ice Age."
But this has nothing to do with global warming one way or the other. The average temperature of the planet didn't drop, the heat was just distributed less evenly around the globe.
- koozebane, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6So.......it's only a LIE if it's from a Republican. Otherwise, it's an exaggeration.
How bloody convenient for activists everywhere..
Based on this rather skewed rule, Al's movie should be called "A Convenient Exaggeration". - DrColossus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”
Best line in the whole article, I hate that any disagreement with the mainstream theory is answered with "Well the oil companies paid that scientist off"- jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I'm not a believer in ad hominem attacks. Let the facts speak for themselves, regardless of who's speaking. What I detest even more though, is the double standard. The scientists espousing global warming aren't funding the research themselves. Government has just as much reason to promote global warming as oil companies do to refute it.
Let's get some honesty out there. We can start by ending the double standard. - theodicey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The double standard exists for a reason: many of the contrarian scientists who are often quoted doubting global warming are being subsidized heavily by think tanks and other propaganda shops. Basically, everyone affiliated with the AEI or the CEI. There is absolutely no reason to take people who are funded *based on their views* seriously, compared to scientists who are funded for their research and discoveries (whether or not they fit the dominant paradigm).
- jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I'm not a believer in ad hominem attacks. Let the facts speak for themselves, regardless of who's speaking. What I detest even more though, is the double standard. The scientists espousing global warming aren't funding the research themselves. Government has just as much reason to promote global warming as oil companies do to refute it.
- Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4OK maybe Al Gore is wrong, I still can't get the moral stand of those trying to disprove him so hard. Even if Global Warming was not man-made it's more than evident that we should not continue bumping so much ***** on our own air, even if CO2 levels were not alarming we have proof that we are screwing the environment (and ourselves as a result) by dumping heavy metals or other extremely dangerous substances in our air.
Let's say Al Gore is wrong, what should we do know, continue killing our atmosphere once and for all? I want to hear those anti save the atmosphere people's stand .....- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Its purely partisan. The left did the same thing with the Iraq mess...
- Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Enlighten me but what is it partisan? Global Warming can actually exist and the left using it for political purposes, but they don't make it less true. It's morally bad what they do but it's even worse to neglect it as a mere political propaganda. Nonetheless, heavy anti Global Warming measures have been taken by most right wing EU governments so it can't be a friction of left's mind. I have to kindly remind you that the world is not just the US and most of the world doesn't care for US parties' partisan goals, they only care for putting those damn filters in its factories and stop harassing the World's environment ....
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6OK maybe G.W. Bush is wrong, I still can't get the moral stand of those trying to disprove him so hard. Even if WMDs were not possessed by Saddam, it's more than evident that we should not continue letting a dictator torture and kill those who oppose him, and even if his WMD research is not advanced, we have proof that he has intent to build them in the future.
Let's say G.W. Bush is wrong, what should we do know, continue letting him kill and torture innocent people? I want to hear those anti save the Iraqis people's stand .....
Four years later we see how that argument actually played out. - jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10moral stand? how about this one... Al Gore's stand on global warming is keeping billions of people in absolute poverty while at the same time threatening to destroy the first world's economy. The organic farming crusaders are causing similar results.
- EComni, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@jcm267
Congratulations! You actually answered the question without devolving into ad hominem tu quoque!
But I don't fully agree that curbs on global warming would keep billions in poverty when it's the already industrialized nations like China and the US that are contributing the most. I also don't think curbing emissions would destroy economies, especially if done gradually. If anything, our economy could be helped out a bit with the introduction of new products and better cars with better mileage.
Not saying everything everywhere would be a-ok, but considering where the world is now economically and the potential problems in the future, the world wouldn't end if we cut down on some of the pollution. - Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@geekee: I would support G.W. Bush if things were really like this. If Mr Bush had found a way to go in Iraq make Saddam fall whilst keeping the balance in the country I would be all with him, only he didn't. Hello, he actually invaded a country and drove it in a lot more worse situation than before, now Saddam is not the sole enemy, now it is everyone VS everyone down there. If Al Gore had invaded a country to beat Global Warming I would all be against him...
@jcm267: Yeah but sometimes enough is enough. I'm working on a overclocked 3.6GHz Core 2 duo, I could have pushed it to 3.8GHz and beyond values granting me better video editing times, only I didn't because I knew if I did so I would get better productivity in the short run but in the long run I would actually lose the performance edge as my chipset would start to weary out and in the end I would have given my CPU an early retirement, so I found the middle value for productivity. The same goes with the economy, if factories continue polluting the environment with such aggressive rates may would help the US economy in the short run, but in the long run it would disrupt its diplomatic relationships -at first- since the polluting would go against the whole world's environment and afterwards would actually have real impacts on the US environment in the form of the flooding of coastal cities and other weird environmental phenomena, but even worse grand cities would become gas chambers of people having more and more problems caused to them because of the heavily polluted atmosphere.
A main principal of free economies in the 20th century was to have pollution at check something that 21st century USA and China seem to have forgotten and changed themselves to wild capitalistic economies trying to achieve short term only goals. - Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@stevethegreat
"...I would all be against him..."
Do you have multiple personality disorder? - Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm just not a native speaker, sorry. Of course I can offer you to learn some Greek: Πώς τα πας φιλαράκι;
- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm not into Greek, at least not receiving, thanks though. We had an employee obsessed with Greek on Craigslist so we had to fire him.
- jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"But I don't fully agree that curbs on global warming would keep billions in poverty when it's the already industrialized nations like China and the US that are contributing the most. I also don't think curbing emissions would destroy economies, especially if done gradually. If anything, our economy could be helped out a bit with the introduction of new products and better cars with better mileage."
China's industrializing, not industrialized. Now that they are becoming rich they are able to invest in nuclear and hydroelectric power, which I think are great alternatives to fossil fuels. China would not have been able to climb out of poverty had we imposed draconian environmental regulations on them. Much of Asia and Africa remain in complete and total poverty, and encouraging them to invest in renewable energy is not helping them.
The US actually pollutes a lot less than it did 100 years ago. We are still cleaning up from our industrialization period, but we are making progress. A generation ago no one would've believed that today the Hudson River to the west of Manhattan and the East River would be clean enough for the fish to return. - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@jcm267
Not quite.
The US emitted 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon in the form of CO2 in 2003. That is slightly more than the total CO2 emissions from 1800-1890. It is over 6x that of the CO2 emissions in 1903.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/emissions/usa.dat - jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1carbon is not a pollutant
- StarkDigging, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Regarding this quote from Dr. Easterbrook:
“I've never been paid a nickel by an oil company... And I'm not a Republican.”
So what? Of course you aren't. The most vehement global warming skeptics aren't Republicans anyway. The shrillest and most aggressive global warming skeptics are Neolibertarians and other Randian fanatics. - kaiser44, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5al gore is a climate whore.
- RyanDaRin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3How did this get on the front page of digg?!? Oh well, im sure all the comments will just deface the good points made in the article.
We know that nothing can stop the effects of global warming, even if we (being the US) stopped emitting C02 all togther othere countries produce double the amount that we do. Go over to China and talk to them.- hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3We're the single largest CO2 producer on the planet. Why would we start with China again?
-
Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by