An Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore is Phony

[Ramo]

Odin, stop calling people morons. That's close-minded and rude.

Quite right, but won't you admit that you have a tendency to be a bit aggresive when someone mentions that there are a possiblity that manmade CO2 isn't the main component in todays climate changes ?

There's a possibility of anything. I'm just saying that when it contradicts the consensus of the scientific community studying the damn thing, that possibility ain't likely.

About the Oreskes study, well, isn't it like if the pope made a study amongst his cardinals about wether they belived jesus was gods son or not.

That analogy is rediculous. The way science has been working for the past several decades is through publishing in peer-reviewed journals. There's no vast conspiracy here. Again, creationists ***** about the same thing, and their argument has equivalent merit as yours.

[Solly]

Science - with its "consensus" myth - has already discredited itself in many ways. It’s the pattern of people in denial; they go out on a limb farther and farther, until it breaks. You'll find that any statistician without a vested interest in the climate debate could pick holes through the Hockey Sticks, the models, etc.

If only the data was available and methods reproducable...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Odin


CO2 levels were LOWER during glacials (180ppm vs. 260ppm) moron.

Discussions of CO2 forcings are irrelevant for the most part as they were typically an effect of the natural cycle and lagged temperature histories. (In other words when glacial periods arose less less CO2 was generated and more C was sequestered as presumably a consequence of slower metabolic organisms and plant life) In the rare exceptions where CO2 preceeded temperature effects (presumably from volcanic disruptions etc. ) little to any effects were seen on global temps. In other words CO2 forcings where records would be applicable show no evidence of strong global warming effects.

What does this mean not much. Data is too sketchy. What effect does CO2 level have on global mean temps and potential positive feedback to other system changes is not necessarily understood from pre man or early man temperature reconstructions.

The arguement that man made global warmers go to with their hockey stick now broken irreparably, is that the current period of time represents global warming made almost exclusively of man made effects, primarily because of CO2 forcings. The arguements goes like this. The last 30 years saw an unprecedented warming rate therefore it has to be because of CO2 forcings. Yet no evidence is in existance that I am aware of regarding warming rate as being unprecedented save for the instrumental time period of the last 150 years.

As for climatology models, I think the Mann debunking clearly shows that independant pure mathematical review on these models is essential if they are to enter into the realm of national and international policy discussion. I think the examples of Pharmacuetical companies having to pass this level of muster before submission to the FDA for approval for use by general public when prescribed by a trained physician is apt. The stakes are far too large to simply go without independant review. So you'll pardon me if I take these models with a grain of salt until independantly verified b/c peer review doesn't cut it with that regard as the Piltdown Mann cases show.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ramo
Odin, stop calling people morons. That's close-minded and rude.

There's a possibility of anything. I'm just saying that when it contradicts the consensus of the scientific community studying the damn thing, that possibility ain't likely.

That analogy is rediculous. The way science has been working for the past several decades is through publishing in peer-reviewed journals. There's no vast conspiracy here. Again, creationists ***** about the same thing, and their argument has equivalent merit as yours.

I don't claim that there are a conspiracy in the climatic science community, just that there are a tendency to "positive feedback" and denial of other possibilities than manmade CO2. Peer review is good unless it is people that sees what they want to see - then it actually is bad.

The consensus isn't actually a good measure, because it goes on what might be true, not what has been proven. Even worse, it has become a political matter where you automatically becomes a "oilindustry paid moron" if you dare to question it.

Btw, I find that creationism is plain BS and should be fought whereever it sticks up its ugly head, so I'm a little offended by being put into their category. I don't try to explain the current global warming by religion, I'm just not sure that the scientists know what is happening and has gotten a blind spot on manmade CO2.

[mactbone]

What would be the gain for scientists to deny that global warming is all completely natural? Anyway, shouldn't there be some scientists with axes to grind or purely altruistic notions that would debunk the stuff that's published in peer review journals?

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe Data is too sketchy.

For those who want it to be sketchy. And for those, it'll continue to be sketchy no matter what happens.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by mactbone
What would be the gain for scientists to deny that global warming is all completely natural?

There really is no gain but there are huge potential risks of ostracizing. One needs have immense credibility to run the risk of going up against the considerable political headwinds.

Anyway, shouldn't there be some scientists with axes to grind or purely altruistic notions that would debunk the stuff that's published in peer review journals?

In reality there are. The reality is though no one is even tackling the science per se of climatology, merely the inept methodologies employed once proxy data has been collected and transformed into temperature reconstructions. There is a LOT of dodgy assumptions on the proxy to temperature correlations.

Don't even start talking the climate modeling stuff.

Mann who is a central and authoritative figure in this realm has been instrumental in shouting down via ad hominem any dissenting views. Take for instance his initial gut reaction to Oregan Institure of Science and Medicine paper and the Wegman report . In both instances the immediate reort was akin to Gore's. "These are paid for by oil company attacks and not peer reviewed". In both instances those were outright lies. Wegmans report was peer reviewed and the Oregan Institute paper was later re-released in a paper by Soon, Baliunius, Robinson, and Robinson. Here in Climate Research.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by VJ

For those who want it to be sketchy. And for those, it'll continue to be sketchy no matter what happens.

Agreed. I believe in having hard evidence to support these allegations. Merely having high CO2 levels in these ages not having apprecaible effect on global temperatures to the extent they can be reconstructed through temperature proxies is not a stake through the heart necessarily that CO2 does not have an effect on green house gas effects. Hence I was conservative in my suppostion.

And realistically that is the scientific method. Form a hypothesis, substantiate the hypothesis so that it becomes a working theory.

At present the assumption that anthropogenic causes are the primary force for global warming is at best a hypothesis with little substantiation to make it a working theory.

Failure to do that will relegate climatology to the realm of 'junk' science for many years to come.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by mactbone
What would be the gain for scientists to deny that global warming is all completely natural? Anyway, shouldn't there be some scientists with axes to grind or purely altruistic notions that would debunk the stuff that's published in peer review journals?

Any scientist that dares to say that manmade CO2 may not be the only cause usually is been blamed to be paid by the oil industry. On the other side it is a really hot political issue that manmade CO2 is the real cause - not nessecarily based on solid scientific proofs, but none the less the common political consensus. Since scientist typically are paid by public (read politically) spendings, then they must take into consideration of what they claim if they want further fundings.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

This one is absolutely priceless. Al Gore being interviewed by David Roberts of the Grist Magazine answers the following question

Q. There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?

I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

[Wack Job Screaming mode]
He played on our fears![/Wack Job screaming mode]


Linkity Linkity

[BlackCat]

Just another example of politicians destroying science.

[Odin]

Dee, Damned thread, DIE! I sick of people ignorant about climatology spewing rubbish The data isn't sketchy, people.

30 years from now the north pole will be free of ice for the first time in 3 million years; the West Antarctice Ice Sheet will collapse; coastal regions will be flooding; and PA, Ogie, and BlackCat will still be in denial.