The Al Gore Thread

[The Omega Concern]

Debaser,

here's an article on the prominent French Scientist Claude Allegre jumping off the Global Warming bandwagon.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...5-fc28f14da388

here's some quotes:

To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.

"over-hyped", I like this man already.

"The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."

here's one scientist who wants nothing to do with Al Gore's b.s., so he's getting out now while his reputation is still intact.

Calling the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers," Dr. Allegre especially despairs at "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." The world would be better off, Dr. Allegre believes, if these "denouncers" became less political and more practical,

organizing conferences and preparing protocals...that's about all he's sees the U.N. doing at present. He's right in line with the Czech President on that one.

...

[Debaser]

Oh so now you care about what the French think? LOL

[Nimrod's Son]

[The Omega Concern]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...03/06/eco0312/

fucking hell...have the journalist programs become so absorbed with heroism even S.I. writers act like self-loathing bleeding hearts.

[The Omega Concern]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...03/06/eco0312/

fucking hell...have the journalist programs become so absorbed with heroism even S.I. writers act like self-loathing bleeding hearts?

[The Omega Concern]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...03/06/eco0312/

fucking hell...have the journalist programs become so absorbed with heroism even S.I. writers act like self-loathing bleeding hearts?

[DeviousJ]

Yeah man, everyone's CRAZY

[The Omega Concern]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/sc...nt&oref=slogin


looks like the luster is off that Oscar the hollywood sheeple gave him:

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

no worries professor, I pick on Dumb Gore plenty.

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”

yes, like I was saying earlier in this thread; science has a tough time predicting the weather 30 days out let alone the climate 50-100 years from now.

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”

it is the New York Times, so they do try to make it a soft landing for Mr. Bore, and mention he's getting the big picture right. But since Gore never mentions that all of the human-induced climate change claims fall within the data of natural cycles, Im guessing these won't be the last scientist jumping off the hysteria bandwagon.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

it is the New York Times, so they do try to make it a soft landing for Mr. Bore, and mention he's getting the big picture right.

Yeah... by quoting a range of scientists with differing opinions on whether he's right or wrong, and in the specifics they disagree with. You basically just selectively quoted certain scientists that you think agree with your stance

[Debaser]

Debunking the NYT's Sloppy Hit Piece on Gore

[The Omega Concern]

Debaser,

I would respect your opinion and dissection of alledged 'hit-piece' on Al Gore moreso than some flunky like that Dave Roberts. He keeps citing the IPCC report which we've gone over here as a politically motivated report funded by the United Nations. He shows no analytical skills and no awareness of why skeptism should be put upon those claiming human-induced GW.

not to mention no mention of Al Gore's association with Occidential petroleum and his association with the company's poised to capitilize on the emerging 'carbon-nuetral' eco-businesses.

Also, Science is not 90% sure the earth rotates on it's axis in 24 hours. Science is not 90% sure the earth orbits the Sun once every 365.25 days...the claim that scientist are 90% sure of something is an example of the flimsy philosophical construct of the IPCC report.

DJ,

i've stated all along that this 'debate is over' mantra by Al Gore was pure demogogery and a ridiculous claim. Debaser wanted to know if scientist had been coming to the fore against anthropogenic GW claims and there has been. Of course there's a debate, it's science. But GW liberals have become intolerant of skeptism within science.

...

[The Omega Concern]

Here's a clear of example of how the machine is already in motion:

Cal-Berkeley has just been awarded half-Billion dollar, 10-year program from BP Oil on developing clean energies. Most reports of this alliance paint a nice and rosy and green picture of this union.

Andrew Paul Guiteirrez, prof. of ecosystems at UC-Berkeley, is part of a group opposed to the BP/UC program. They claim it stands to harm the colleges reputation for being independant.

50 corporate researchers will work hand in hand with university scientist and this "corporateversity" is what the professor is uneasy about. Essentially all they're going to do is create a demand for Ethonal (as one example) but enviromentally its non-sense to think that you can bio-enginner 'fuel-crops' to meet the demands of world consumption.

however, Since BP is putting up so much money and now working directly with one of leading eco-University in the world, you can be sure BP will come to find that manufacturing these crops for alternative fuels will be our savior...whether that's hype or factual will be less important to them than creating a demand they are setting up to meet.

not too unlike Al Gore's profiteering from carbon-offsets.

and the beat goes on...

[DeviousJ]

"Andrew Paul Guiteirrez, prof. of ecosystems at UC-Berkeley, is part of a group opposed to the BP/UC program. They claim it stands to harm the colleges reputation for being independant."

That's the only relevant part of your post. He's worried that whatever results the college produces, people will say 'oh well they're connected to BP so they're biased, we can't believe this!' - just like you're doing right now, before they've even produced anything. And what are you talking about, 'environmentally nonsense to think you can bio-engineer fuel crops to meet the demans of world consumption' - what does that even mean?

[The Omega Concern]

the professor sees problems in those bio-fuels in much the same way there's been problems in genetic agriculture. He's worried the hype is running ahead of the science and hasty decisions will be made which may produce other problems going foreward.

You don't see a problem with BP using their scientist in conjunction with UC scientist? Who has oversight of the reports? How much influence will a big oil company have over the independance of UC Berkeley? $500,000,000 and a decade long commitment should have some faculty members questioning the motive.

there's a merge here of a corporate giant with a academic one and many scientist are glowing in their reviews of the merge but most of them are being considered for employment in the program, or already been named to head certain aspects of it.

that's why this professor and a few others on the Berkeley campus are suspect of the program. I applaud him for examining the issue to the extent he has and speaking out about it.

I wish I could find this front page San Francisco Chronicle article on the internet and specifically SFGate.com. It was run March 8th and though the news articles of the BP/UC union can be found, this particular article in which the professor was interviewed and shared his concerns I haven't found.

[DeviousJ]

It's here http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGCROHIOV1.DTL

I see what you're talking about now, but the whole idea of research is to find solutions to problems, often by looking at them in different ways. Creating an effective and efficient biofuel is one problem, producing enough of it is another. It's possible they'll be able to research methods other than traditional agriculture to produce it, and if nothing else sow the seeds (ho ho) of future fuels. And besides, whatever BP would like to be able to sell there's no need to meet the entire world's energy demands with biofuel - we're going to need portable liquid fuel for some time but energy grids can be powered by nuclear and 'green' sources, and if fuel cells are developed then that will further reduce the need for things like bio fuel.

The main problem, as far as I can see, is that all of this planet's energy has basically come from the sun (or other stars) over the course of billions of years, and we're burning through that at a fantastic rate - and it becomes a case of trying to be more efficient with the energy we have, finding more latent energy sources, and trying to capture more of the Sun's current energy output. Biofuels really fall into the last category, but I don't think we can rely on finding a solution that will capture as much on a day-to-day basis as was captured over the entire course of the Earth's history. It's a pressing problem, but I don't think anyone's going to rush into proposing an untenable total solution.

I don't see an inherent problem with the joint program, no. It's not as though the whole thing is immediately corrupted by the relationship, but they do have to be careful that they always remember the reasoning behind this agreement. Corporate funding has always been a part of academic research, and that always requires vigilance - more so in this case, given the scale of it. And just because people are being considered for the program doesn't mean their praise has been bought - they were probably already involved in this kind of research (the people most likely to care either way), and this expands what they're able to do. You're right to be concerned, sure, but it doesn't mean it's wrong off the bat

[The Omega Concern]

i just think there's little doubt their conclusioins will coincide with what's best for the corporations marketing campaign, rather than science leading the way particular if the science deems their vision moot.

...

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science...-012154-7403r/

A Danish scientist said the idea of a "global temperature" and global warming is more political than scientific.

..."It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth," said Andresen, an expert on thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".

so, that's Micheal Chricton, the Pres. of the Czech Republic, a leading French scientist and now a Danish one calling out the politics involved in this entire debate-which-isn't-a-debate-because-dumbgoresaidsobs...

welcome to the vast right-wing conspiracy...

[Mayfuck]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

i just think there's little doubt their conclusioins will coincide with what's best for the corporations marketing campaign, rather than science leading the way particular if the science deems their vision moot.

...

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science...-012154-7403r/



so, that's Micheal Chricton, the Pres. of the Czech Republic, a leading French scientist and now a Danish one calling out the politics involved in this entire debate-which-isn't-a-debate-because-dumbgoresaidsobs...

welcome to the vast right-wing conspiracy...

um This article says absolutely nothing other than you typed "global warming is a myth" in google and this is the best you could find. then it is pretty pathetic that this and the french scientist one were the only "scientific" opinions you could find in the face of an overwhelming consensus that says otherwise. People here ridicule you not for your point of views or ridiculous claims, but your inability to back up your talking points with anything substantial. i dont doubt that you never held a job higher than a box factory worker and at best have a GED. i would explain to you why that article says nothing but that would dignify your ridiculous post and I consider myself well above that.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

i just think there's little doubt their conclusioins will coincide with what's best for the corporations marketing campaign, rather than science leading the way particular if the science deems their vision moot.

Actually yes, there's a lot of doubt about exactly that. Take the professor you quoted for example - he's worried about the college's reputation for independence and that the corporation might start demanding more for continued funding, not that research will be completely perverted by the evil controlling corporations. Dont forget, also, that BP is a business and it's in their interests to research the best product, not to decide on something and force scientists to support it for legitimacy. Why do you always take sensible reasons for concern and inflate them into some definite conspiracy?

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science...-012154-7403r/



so, that's Micheal Chricton, the Pres. of the Czech Republic, a leading French scientist and now a Danish one calling out the politics involved in this entire debate-which-isn't-a-debate-because-dumbgoresaidsobs...

welcome to the vast right-wing conspiracy...

What's your point? That these four people don't add up to a vast number? Or that these four people of variable authority on the subject aren't all right-wing? It is pretty awesome that you're able to find a minority of scientists who do disagree with the general consensus though, I mean that's unheard of. We should alert the media

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...dle/index.html

Oh and since you posted this

http://elleeseymour.com/2007/03/14/who-swindled-who/

Some highlights:

One of the most respected scientists interviewed, Carl Wunsch, has since denounced the programme as “an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community”

And

"However, further inquiries revealed that the C4 graph was based on a diagram in another paper produced as part of a "petition project" by the same group of climate sceptics. This diagram was itself based on long out-of-date information on terrestrial temperatures compiled by Nasa scientists.

However, crucially, the axis along the bottom of the graph has been distorted in the C4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s.

Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said.

If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have undermined his argument.

"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said."

Also

"Two eminent British scientists who questioned the accuracy of a Channel 4 programme that claimed global warming was an unfounded conspiracy theory have received an expletive-filled tirade from the programme maker.

In an e-mail exchange leaked to The Times, Martin Durkin, the executive producer of The Great Global Warming Swindle, responded to the concerns of Dr Armand Leroi, from Imperial College, and Simon Singh, the respected scientific author, by telling them to “go and fuck yourself”. "

Oh and he also said 'you're a big daft cock'. These are the people you're referring to to make your case?

[mercurial]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern
http://www.channel4.com/science/mic...ndle/index.html

DeviousJ beat me to it ... the result of not reading this board very much I assure you

The Omega Concern

This 'documentary' has been widely debunked - just do a little research on it ... here's an article/editorial I read about it last week. Hope you'll take the time to read it.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.publicaddress.net/default,4026.sm#post4026

[Debaser]

I thought I debunked the documentary back on post #90 of this thread... nobody listens to me.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Debaser

I thought I debunked the documentary back on post #90 of this thread... nobody listens to me.

I did man - this was more of an update

[DeviousJ]

Oh Omega Concern! Yoohoo! Let's discuss stuff in here, shall we? How about talking about your prominent French scientist who 'jumped off the climate change bandwagon'?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ma-non-troppo/

In the French weekly journal l’Express he exposed his “sceptical” views in an article entitled “The snows of Kilimanjaro”. In the short editorial, he somehow became lost when following Ernest Hemingway to East Africa. Allègre mentions two scientific examples to demonstrate that there is something fundamentally wrong in the IPCC statements on the reality of climate change. First, he commented on the disappearing glaciers of the Kilimanjaro, sometimes treated as the “Panda” of anthropogenic climate change. Citing a "Nature" study (which was in fact published in Science) by Pierre Sepulchre and colleagues from my laboratory, he claimed that this modelling study demonstrated that Kilimanjaro’s glaciers are controlled by tectonic activity. In fact, the article describes the impact of tectonics of the East African Highlands on Indian ocean moisture transport ---- on a time scale of millions of years! This confuses glacier variability over the last ~100 years with rainfall trends extending back to the time of the early hominids (such as Lucy).

In fact, there are good reasons to believe that the situation on the Kilimanjaro is a bit more complicated than a simple “atmosphere gets warmer/ glaciers are melting” equation (for instance, see this previous post on tropical glacier retreat). Furthermore, the real link to climate change does not come from the retreat of one single tropical glacier, but from the fact that, to my knowledge, all studied tropical glaciers have retreated over the 20th century, and the retreat rates have generally increased in recent decades.

Allègre's misunderstanding was immediately followed by another one. Citing a recent study on relatively stable Antarctic snowfall over the last 30 years (Monaghan et al, 2006, discussed here) , he highlighted what he thought was a clear contradiction to future climate simulations of global circulation models (melting of the Antarctic ice sheet). However, that's not what they predict. All models predict a comparably stable Antarctic ice sheet for the 21th century in which comparably moderate temperature changes in Antarctica are compensated by slight increase in snowfall. The Monaghan et al study does not contradict these model scenarios.

The French climate research community was of course not very pleased about this short sequence of misrepresentations and personal attacks (“les Cassandres”) and corrected Allègre in an open letter published here on the website of the Institute Pierre Simon Laplace (which includes links to the ongoing back and forth, for those that speak French).

[WeilandFan]

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowln...ning_on_it.jpg
http://www.bullwinkleblog.com/wp-con...os/Al_Gore.jpg
http://www.fantasyfootballfiles.com/...4-al-gore.JPEG
http://www.gambits.com/childers/gore...ntion-kiss.jpg

[DeviousJ]

Yes that's Al Gore - you found the right thread, well done

[Trotskilicious]

die katy lied