Senate Report: Gore Lies, Media Biased, Advocates Misrepresent

[Solly]

My lack of belief in AGW is due to its two main pieces of evidence
i) Temperature reconstructions - these are always cherry picked and completely mis-specified, commonly going against known periods of warmth, etc
ii) Predictive models of the next 100 years. These are also based on poor data, are not robust, poorly specified, and incapable of showing any predictive ability.

I could also argue iii) the sub-sophomoric statistical ability of the most well-known climate scientists, but I'll refrain

I suggest visiting http://www.climateaudit.org for a running and uncensored (note UnrealClimate) take on the current scientific mess AGW is in.

[Ramo]

James Inhofe (the guy who wrote the report) is the epitomy of the politicization of science, and is quite possibly the dumbest Senator in the country. He's the guy who, during the gay marriage debate, put up a chart of his family, bragging about the lack of homosexuality within it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DaShi


Why? How is it different from the Al Gore film I didn't see? Does he have conclusive proof that Al Gore willfully spread information that he knew to be false?

There is a lot of evidence that what he is saying on many issues is not accepted by many in the scientific community as proven. Yet he is saying them as if they were proven facts and not just (his) opinion.

[Ned]

Oerdin, et tu Brute?

[Solly]

Originally posted by Ramo
James Inhofe (the guy who wrote the report) is the epitomy of the politicization of science, and is quite possibly the dumbest Senator in the country. He's the guy who, during the gay marriage debate, put up a chart of his family, bragging about the lack of homosexuality within it.

Completely irrelevant.

[DaShi]

There are many facts that aren't accepted by many in the scientific community, especially in research that has political controversy. Whether or not they are facts is a matter of opinion (or stupidity). But it doesn't prove that Al Gore is a liar.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Park Avenue


Completely irrelevant.

Goes to character.

[Solly]

I would suggest the cause of the politicisation is the climate scientists refusing to make available and reproducible their data and methods, and instead saying, "believe us, we're the climate scientists!"

(And the few times the methods have been managed to be extracted, they've been downright shoddy and amateurish).

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Listen, I am not saying I am against global warming. I think it is the best supported scientific theory we currently have, as such I favor it.

But because of the subjects politicization, there are people who seem to take it as fact, rather then as a scientific theory (which has much less support then evolution, for example). Many of these people do not seem to assume that their position is correct, and are against further study (Which is needed).

JM

No offense, but global warming is a pretty well proved fact. If nothing else, then the speed of greenland glaciers is a very serious proof. The helheim glacier is a good proof of this - currently it's moving at a speed of one meter an hour wich is way more than some five ears ago.

Btw. helheim means something like realm of death.

[Ramo]

Completely irrelevant.

That was an argument for him being the dumbest person in the Senate.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by DaShi


Why? How is it different from the Al Gore film I didn't see? Does he have conclusive proof that Al Gore willfully spread information that he knew to be false?

Well, it at least has references to scienetific research. I know that such is uncommon in the current climate war, but some may find it interesting.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf

Read the article.
Very interesting.
Some of the conclusions are stated in a funny way.
for example
"The temperature will rise far enough to do more harm than good".
is given as very unlikely.
In my understanding, this means that the opposite scenario, namely that the temperature will not rise far enough to do more harm than good is very unlikely.
This is pushing it just like he is accusing Gore of.
This should be rated as Not Proven or Unlikely at most, given the information he shows...

Another one, on page 18, he measures the impact of Kyoto in 2100, just a page or two after discussing why such predictions are useless..

I have a few other nitpicks here and there, but on the whole , I must admit this has shifted my viewpoint slightly.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Ned's quote made me aware of this - are you for real beliving in Gores nonscientifical propaganda film ?

I didn't actualy get to see it in theaters, but I might buy it on video and put it right next to my copy of Farenight 9/11

My point was that this assinine little pamplet will have a lesser effect on public opinion regardless of its truth or lack their of. Primarily because it is not a feature length movie being shown on screens across the country.

And ofcorse I assert that CO2 emited by humans is causing the planet to warm, this is directly meashured and well established. To assert otherwise would infact require an explination of how a know greenhouse gas could make a huge jump in its atmospheric concentration without causing warming. The burden of proof is on thouse attacking Global warming, they must prove either the warming is not happening and explain how that can possibly be.

[Ned]

Impaler, I could assert the following and YOU refute it.

Increase in CO2 causes and increase in vegetation that lowers temperatures.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]


I didn't actualy get to see it in theaters, but I might buy it on video and put it right next to my copy of Farenight 9/11

There was a lot of noise when it was published, but since then there has been silence even from the most sturdy defensors of his pov - probably because they knew it couldn't be defended.

My point was that this assinine little pamplet will have a lesser effect on public opinion regardless of its truth or lack their of. Primarily because it is not a feature length movie being shown on screens across the country.

Blame your propaganda ministery.

And ofcorse I assert that CO2 emited by humans is causing the planet to warm, this is directly meashured and well established. To assert otherwise would infact require an explination of how a know greenhouse gas could make a huge jump in its atmospheric concentration without causing warming. The burden of proof is on thouse attacking Global warming, they must prove either the warming is not happening and explain how that can possibly be.

You are aware of the fact that CO2 is a minor attribute to grenhouse effect and that there isn't established any scientific connection between current global warming and CO2 ? The only know fact is that CO2 is contributing to current global warming - not that it is causing it.