Al Gore: Cigarette smoking 'significant' contributor to global warming

[almaty 19]

i thought he was the weather man on the today show.. a voter from missouri

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's cute to reduce Global Warming down to a personality and then lampoon him to discredit the science behind it. But while you're chortling over Gore...

In today’s Wall Street Journal, prominent climate skeptic Richard Lindzen tries to make the case that “There Is No ‘Consensus’ On Global Warming.” Most of the article is, typically, invective against Al Gore and his movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

Lindzen does acknowledge that thousands of scientists from 120 countries have agreed, through the extraordinarily rigorous International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process, that human activity is driving global warming. He also acknowledges that this consensus was recently confirmed by a report prepared for Congress by the National Academy of Scientists.

Here is Lindzen’s only substantive response:

More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy [sic — Naomi] Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words “global climate change” produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.

Peiser’s work – and Lindzen’s reliance on it — is an embarrassment. Here’s why:

1. Peizer misunderstands the point of Oreskes study. The point was not that every article about climate change explicitly endorsed the IPCC conclusions. The point is that if there was real uncertainty there would be “substantive disagreement in the scientific community” that would be reflected in peer reviewed literature. There wasn’t.

2. Peiser didn’t find any peer reviewed studies that oppose the scientific consensus. Peiser claimed that 34 papers “reject or doubt” the consensus view. Tim Lambert got Peiser to send him the abstracts of those 34 papers. The vast majority of these papers express no doubt whatsoever about the consensus view. Only one paper, by the Association of Petroleum Geologists, cited by Peiser actually rejects the consensus view and it “does not appear to have been peer reviewed outside that Association.”

Peiser has admitted that his work included errors. But ultimately, it doesn’t make a difference. The point of activity like this isn’t to be right, it’s simply to provide fodder to people like Lindzen to create the appearance of uncertainty.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/26/wsj-gore/

[I'm Gone 60]

The False Alert of Global Warming

By Tom Bethell

Published 5/18/2005 12:06:43 AM

Global warming became the environmentalists' cause celebre in the late 1980s. They had turned on a dime, for only a few years earlier global cooling had been their mantra. They didn't know what had caused that earlier "cooling trend," but its effects were sure to be bad. "The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only in ten years," Newsweek reported in 1975. "The resulting famines could be catastrophic."

Now warming is the specter, with its melting glaciers, inundated cities, and the Gulf Stream reversing course. But I doubt if the enviros can keep on fomenting the scare much longer. It has been based on little more than extrapolated temperatures and spurious charts. What are the facts? Surface temperature measurements show a global warming period from about 1910 to 1940, followed by a cooling period until 1975. Since then we have experienced a slight warming trend. These three periods add up to a surface-temperature increase of perhaps one-degree Fahrenheit for the entire 20th century.

Satellite measurements of atmospheric temperatures do not agree, however. They began only in 1979, and have shown no significant increase over the last quarter century. Balloon readings did show an abrupt, one-time increase in 1976-1977. Since then, those temperatures have stabilized.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8177

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The False Alert of Global Warming

By Tom Bethell

Published 5/18/2005 12:06:43 AM

Global warming became the environmentalists' cause celebre in the late 1980s. They had turned on a dime, for only a few years earlier global cooling had been their mantra. They didn't know what had caused that earlier "cooling trend," but its effects were sure to be bad. "The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only in ten years," Newsweek reported in 1975. "The resulting famines could be catastrophic."

Now warming is the specter, with its melting glaciers, inundated cities, and the Gulf Stream reversing course. But I doubt if the enviros can keep on fomenting the scare much longer. It has been based on little more than extrapolated temperatures and spurious charts. What are the facts? Surface temperature measurements show a global warming period from about 1910 to 1940, followed by a cooling period until 1975. Since then we have experienced a slight warming trend. These three periods add up to a surface-temperature increase of perhaps one-degree Fahrenheit for the entire 20th century.

Satellite measurements of atmospheric temperatures do not agree, however. They began only in 1979, and have shown no significant increase over the last quarter century. Balloon readings did show an abrupt, one-time increase in 1976-1977. Since then, those temperatures have stabilized.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8177

So the overwhelming consensus that Global Warming exists among the scientists around the world can be dismissed by journalists?

[I'm Gone 60]

So the overwhelming consensus that Global Warming exists among the scientists around the world can be dismissed by journalists?

No one knows. For every report saying there is global warming there is a report that says there isn't a problem.

[incanada1234 0]

Al Gore's a freaking lunatic.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No one knows. For every report saying there is global warming there is a report that says there isn't a problem.

Actually we do know and facts remain. You will not find any comprehensive scientific study that disputes Global Warming...not one. Where there is debate is over how much human activity contributes to Global Warming.

[incanada1234 0]

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

No one knows. For every report saying there is global warming there is a report that says there isn't a problem.

Actually we do know and facts remain. You will not find any comprehensive scientific study that disputes Global Warming...not one. Where there is debate is over how much human activity contributes to Global Warming.

FACT: We will have global warming or cooling. The temperature will not stay the same. Just look at history. I'm sure whatever happens it will the fault of the evil human race.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No one knows. For every report saying there is global warming there is a report that says there isn't a problem.

Actually we do know and facts remain. You will not find any comprehensive scientific study that disputes Global Warming...not one. Where there is debate is over how much human activity contributes to Global Warming.

FACT: We will have global warming or cooling. The temperature will not stay the same. Just look at history. I'm sure whatever happens it will the fault of the evil human race.

So you have no trust in scientists who actually know what they're talking about?

[ieldanth 0]

Fact is, warming and cooling cycles have happened since before humanity even existed and those same scientists have to understand that factors beyond our control are contributing, such as an increase in solar radiation. Hotter sun, hotter Earth. Should we search for alternative methods of generating energy? Absolutely, if only for the purpose of becoming independent of oil. The Earth is warming, of that there is no reasonable doubt and whatever we do to reduce carbon emissions can only help us in the long term anyway. I would only say that standards of emissions should be applied evenly across the globe, not just in select countries. In other words, don't politicize it(ha ha). Making tougher standards for one country over another is a good way of saying you aren't really serious about pollution and are only using it as a political football.

[Mirorgate 0]

So you have no trust in scientists who actually know what they're talking about?

Framers Almanac actually gave my grandfather and father more info on the wheather and patterns there of more so than a lot of scientists ever did. We called it common sense and trending. That is what mdyoung, lucky, and everyone else has been stating. nothing more, nothing less.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So you have no trust in scientists who actually know what they're talking about?

Framers Almanac actually gave my grandfather and father more info on the wheather and patterns there of more so than a lot of scientists ever did. We called it common sense and trending. That is what mdyoung, lucky, and everyone else has been stating. nothing more, nothing less.

Was it common sense that got us to the moon? Give credit where credit is due.

[rclouse 0]

No one knows. For every report saying there is global warming there is a report that says there isn't a problem.

Actually we do know and facts remain. You will not find any comprehensive scientific study that disputes Global Warming...not one. Where there is debate is over how much human activity contributes to Global Warming.

FACT: We will have global warming or cooling. The temperature will not stay the same. Just look at history. I'm sure whatever happens it will the fault of the evil human race.

Boy, I hope it's global cooling. I'd hate to have to give up my Hummer.

[Alex+R 0]

So you have no trust in scientists who actually know what they're talking about?

Framers Almanac actually gave my grandfather and father more info on the wheather and patterns there of more so than a lot of scientists ever did. We called it common sense and trending. That is what mdyoung, lucky, and everyone else has been stating. nothing more, nothing less.

Was it common sense that got us to the moon? Give credit where credit is due.