Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth

[mendeleev 68]

What's odd to me is how that fringe element in the US thinks that they have it all figured out while the rest of the world has got it wrong. As I said earlier, there were the same type debates between the reasonable and the deniers when the scientific community came to a consensus that CFC's are tearing a hole into the ozone layer and that a change of course will be required to avoid a disaster. There will always be a fringe element that cannot accept some inconvenient truths. And while they're typically loud and all I take comfort in knowing that in the end they tend to matter little.

Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory

Survey of peer reviewed studies reveals less than 50% of published scientists believe global warming is man made. More skeptics than advocates among scientific community while IPCC claim majority endorse the theory .

Infowars.net | August 30 , 2007

Steve Watson

A new survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, has concluded that less than half endorse what has been dubbed the "consensus view," that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change.

For a wealth of information on the man made global warming hoax check our archive which has scores of articles and multimedia files relating to the science of global warming as well as the agenda behind the hype.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/g...ade_warming.htm

Although political partisans don't recognize this, science is a self-regulating process.

I have followed the post above, since it seemed to make some interesting claims. The links takes me to a blog that purports to have a manuscript that has been submitted to a journal, called Energy and Environment, that none of the leading US research universities that I use for document retrieval has in their collections. And I have not heard of this journal, although I am a scientist who has been working at the intersection of energy and the environment for over twenty years. I found link to titles (but not abstracts, although the link indicated that abstracts were offered for this journal).

It is difficult to assess the usefulness of this journal although it would appear that, given its obscurity, its scientific impact is not high. (This is a slightly technical way that scientists use to state that a journal or an article may be useless.)

The manuscript itself has not made it through the peer-review process. One has no idea what it says now, other than what certain political partisans may wish to represent and, for sure, we have no idea what the finished product, after the manuscript gets the benefit of anonymous scientific peer review, may say, if it ever gets published at all.

For the time being, I would suggest that the claims made by the poster are hot air, not information. Once they are in fact published in a reputable scientific journal, there might be something interesting to discuss. For now -- nothing.

[GaryC 7]

What's odd to me is how that fringe element in the US thinks that they have it all figured out while the rest of the world has got it wrong. As I said earlier, there were the same type debates between the reasonable and the deniers when the scientific community came to a consensus that CFC's are tearing a hole into the ozone layer and that a change of course will be required to avoid a disaster. There will always be a fringe element that cannot accept some inconvenient truths. And while they're typically loud and all I take comfort in knowing that in the end they tend to matter little.

Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory

Survey of peer reviewed studies reveals less than 50% of published scientists believe global warming is man made. More skeptics than advocates among scientific community while IPCC claim majority endorse the theory .

Infowars.net | August 30 , 2007

Steve Watson

A new survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, has concluded that less than half endorse what has been dubbed the "consensus view," that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change.

For a wealth of information on the man made global warming hoax check our archive which has scores of articles and multimedia files relating to the science of global warming as well as the agenda behind the hype.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/g...ade_warming.htm

Although political partisans don't recognize this, science is a self-regulating process.

I have followed the post above, since it seemed to make some interesting claims. The links takes me to a blog that purports to have a manuscript that has been submitted to a journal, called Energy and Environment, that none of the leading US research universities that I use for document retrieval has in their collections. And I have not heard of this journal, although I am a scientist who has been working at the intersection of energy and the environment for over twenty years. I found link to titles (but not abstracts, although the link indicated that abstracts were offered for this journal).

It is difficult to assess the usefulness of this journal although it would appear that, given its obscurity, its scientific impact is not high. (This is a slightly technical way that scientists use to state that a journal or an article may be useless.)

The manuscript itself has not made it through the peer-review process. One has no idea what it says now, other than what certain political partisans may wish to represent and, for sure, we have no idea what the finished product, after the manuscript gets the benefit of anonymous scientific peer review, may say, if it ever gets published at all.

For the time being, I would suggest that the claims made by the poster are hot air, not information. Once they are in fact published in a reputable scientific journal, there might be something interesting to discuss. For now -- nothing.

Uh huh, Just what I would expect. It's a survey not a scientific study. Peer review isn't something that is done for surveys. The reason it hasn't been given a wide exposure in the media is because it does not fit with the current dogma. The truth is there are deniers when it comes to global warming. They are the ones that cling to the idea that man is responsible for it no matter how many of the "truths" are shown to be false.

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

What's odd to me is how that fringe element in the US thinks that they have it all figured out while the rest of the world has got it wrong. As I said earlier, there were the same type debates between the reasonable and the deniers when the scientific community came to a consensus that CFC's are tearing a hole into the ozone layer and that a change of course will be required to avoid a disaster. There will always be a fringe element that cannot accept some inconvenient truths. And while they're typically loud and all I take comfort in knowing that in the end they tend to matter little.

Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory

Survey of peer reviewed studies reveals less than 50% of published scientists believe global warming is man made. More skeptics than advocates among scientific community while IPCC claim majority endorse the theory .

Infowars.net | August 30 , 2007

Steve Watson

A new survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, has concluded that less than half endorse what has been dubbed the "consensus view," that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change.

For a wealth of information on the man made global warming hoax check our archive which has scores of articles and multimedia files relating to the science of global warming as well as the agenda behind the hype.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/g...ade_warming.htm

Although political partisans don't recognize this, science is a self-regulating process.

I have followed the post above, since it seemed to make some interesting claims. The links takes me to a blog that purports to have a manuscript that has been submitted to a journal, called Energy and Environment, that none of the leading US research universities that I use for document retrieval has in their collections. And I have not heard of this journal, although I am a scientist who has been working at the intersection of energy and the environment for over twenty years. I found link to titles (but not abstracts, although the link indicated that abstracts were offered for this journal).

It is difficult to assess the usefulness of this journal although it would appear that, given its obscurity, its scientific impact is not high. (This is a slightly technical way that scientists use to state that a journal or an article may be useless.)

The manuscript itself has not made it through the peer-review process. One has no idea what it says now, other than what certain political partisans may wish to represent and, for sure, we have no idea what the finished product, after the manuscript gets the benefit of anonymous scientific peer review, may say, if it ever gets published at all.

For the time being, I would suggest that the claims made by the poster are hot air, not information. Once they are in fact published in a reputable scientific journal, there might be something interesting to discuss. For now -- nothing.

Lesson...never try to argue science with a real scientist.

[GaryC 7]

What's odd to me is how that fringe element in the US thinks that they have it all figured out while the rest of the world has got it wrong. As I said earlier, there were the same type debates between the reasonable and the deniers when the scientific community came to a consensus that CFC's are tearing a hole into the ozone layer and that a change of course will be required to avoid a disaster. There will always be a fringe element that cannot accept some inconvenient truths. And while they're typically loud and all I take comfort in knowing that in the end they tend to matter little.

Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory

Survey of peer reviewed studies reveals less than 50% of published scientists believe global warming is man made. More skeptics than advocates among scientific community while IPCC claim majority endorse the theory .

Infowars.net | August 30 , 2007

Steve Watson

A new survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, has concluded that less than half endorse what has been dubbed the "consensus view," that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change.

For a wealth of information on the man made global warming hoax check our archive which has scores of articles and multimedia files relating to the science of global warming as well as the agenda behind the hype.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/g...ade_warming.htm

Although political partisans don't recognize this, science is a self-regulating process.

I have followed the post above, since it seemed to make some interesting claims. The links takes me to a blog that purports to have a manuscript that has been submitted to a journal, called Energy and Environment, that none of the leading US research universities that I use for document retrieval has in their collections. And I have not heard of this journal, although I am a scientist who has been working at the intersection of energy and the environment for over twenty years. I found link to titles (but not abstracts, although the link indicated that abstracts were offered for this journal).

It is difficult to assess the usefulness of this journal although it would appear that, given its obscurity, its scientific impact is not high. (This is a slightly technical way that scientists use to state that a journal or an article may be useless.)

The manuscript itself has not made it through the peer-review process. One has no idea what it says now, other than what certain political partisans may wish to represent and, for sure, we have no idea what the finished product, after the manuscript gets the benefit of anonymous scientific peer review, may say, if it ever gets published at all.

For the time being, I would suggest that the claims made by the poster are hot air, not information. Once they are in fact published in a reputable scientific journal, there might be something interesting to discuss. For now -- nothing.

Lesson...never try to argue science with a real scientist.

And just how was I PWND? Not at all. This was a survey of published scientific and peer reviewed papers. You can deny the truth all you want. The real truth is that most real scientists don't think that man causes global warming. New studies come out every day that shoot down once was accepted as the "truth". The evidence is piling up but the truth deniers still cling to their dogma.

Global Warming Panic: Politicians Try to Stifle Scientists

By Debra Saunders

Jun 23, 2007

If you want to convince the world that an overwhelming majority of scientists believes in global warming, then start by ignoring scientists who are not true believers. First, establish lists of scientists with your approved position, then smear dissidents. Soon, up-and-coming scientists will be afraid to cross the rigid green line.

Global Warming Panic: Politicians Try to Stifle Scientists

Global Warming Panic: Politicians Try to Stifle Scientists

So, the Society of Environmental Journalists put together a guide on climate change that lists a number of publications on global warming, scientists and seven environmental groups, each with positive descriptions. Under the "Deniers, Dissenters and 'Skeptics'" category are four listings -- all negative. They suggest that these folk are venal, partisan and bad scientists, or all of the above.

According to the SEJ guide, University of Virginia professor Patrick Michaels "still claims to be the Virginia 'state climatologist' although the state has disavowed him." The publisher of George Mason University professor Fred Singer's books is connected with the "Moonie" leader, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. The Competitive Enterprise Institute think tank has received oil money. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., has a flack "whose resume brags of starting the 'Swift Boat' story that injured candidate John Kerry." The short list, with a senator even, suggests they had run out of dissident scientists -- or dissident scientists they could squeeze into the venal-lightweight box.

James O'Brien -- director of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies and former Florida state climatologist, and not listed in the SEJ guide -- said of guide's terms for nonbelievers: "I don't like the term 'deniers.' They're trying to say we're like Holocaust deniers." He didn't make that up. Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman recently wrote 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."

It ought to tell you something that the guide focuses not on the issues, but personal issues and credentials of nonbelievers. Ooooooh, a senator has a flack who spins. How nefarious. I'm sure global warming guru and former Vice President Al Gore only hired monks.

Most insulting is the insinuation that skeptics are after money, while believers are pure. Nonsense, David Legates, Delaware state climatologist, told me. Dire global warming predictions draw the big bucks in research these days: "There's a lot more money to be made by saying the world is coming to an end than to say that this is a bunch of hooey."

"Hooey" is the term also used by Reid Bryson, the father of scientific climatology, in the (Madison, Wis.) Capital Times, as he explained: "If you want to be an eminent scientist, you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"

Legates tells students who are not global-warming true believers, "If you don't have tenure at a major research university, keep your mouth shut."

Dissenting scientists do not deny that the planet is getting warmer. As O'Brien noted, "I believe that there is global warming and it's probably due to natural as well as human causes." But also, "It's not occurring as fast as the alarmists say," and its consequences won't be as dire as they say. SEJ should see the value in skeptics who challenge the global-warming orthodoxy -- which can make global warming forecasts more concise -- instead of suggesting that no good scientists have alternative views.

O'Brien sees a schism in the science community, with real-world scientists -- think former Director of the National Hurricane Center Neil Frank -- on one skeptic side, and environmentalists and ecologists, who "if they see more turtles this year than last year, they write a paper" on the worst-case-scenario other.

Legates noted that state climatologists deal in patterns and cycles and "tend to be more skeptical of the extreme climate change scenarios."

Politicians, thus, have begun to stifle state climatologists who are not global-warming boosters -- oddly with little complaint that evil politicians are trying to censor noble scientists.

Oregon state climatologist George Taylor is a skeptic. Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski, a Democrat, asked Oregon State University to stop Taylor from using a title he had used without complaint since 1991. Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, also a Democrat, pulled a similar move on Michaels, who is now the American Association of State Climatologists-designated state climatologist in Virginia.

As if it's a bad thing to be recognized by fellow climatologists, instead of a politician -- at least to the Society of Environmental Journalists.

http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artm...3&num=14277

Edited October 14, 2007 by GaryC

[GaryC 7]

What's odd to me is how that fringe element in the US thinks that they have it all figured out while the rest of the world has got it wrong. As I said earlier, there were the same type debates between the reasonable and the deniers when the scientific community came to a consensus that CFC's are tearing a hole into the ozone layer and that a change of course will be required to avoid a disaster. There will always be a fringe element that cannot accept some inconvenient truths. And while they're typically loud and all I take comfort in knowing that in the end they tend to matter little.

Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory

Survey of peer reviewed studies reveals less than 50% of published scientists believe global warming is man made. More skeptics than advocates among scientific community while IPCC claim majority endorse the theory .

Infowars.net | August 30 , 2007

Steve Watson

A new survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, has concluded that less than half endorse what has been dubbed the "consensus view," that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change.

For a wealth of information on the man made global warming hoax check our archive which has scores of articles and multimedia files relating to the science of global warming as well as the agenda behind the hype.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/g...ade_warming.htm

Although political partisans don't recognize this, science is a self-regulating process.

I have followed the post above, since it seemed to make some interesting claims. The links takes me to a blog that purports to have a manuscript that has been submitted to a journal, called Energy and Environment, that none of the leading US research universities that I use for document retrieval has in their collections. And I have not heard of this journal, although I am a scientist who has been working at the intersection of energy and the environment for over twenty years. I found link to titles (but not abstracts, although the link indicated that abstracts were offered for this journal).

It is difficult to assess the usefulness of this journal although it would appear that, given its obscurity, its scientific impact is not high. (This is a slightly technical way that scientists use to state that a journal or an article may be useless.)

The manuscript itself has not made it through the peer-review process. One has no idea what it says now, other than what certain political partisans may wish to represent and, for sure, we have no idea what the finished product, after the manuscript gets the benefit of anonymous scientific peer review, may say, if it ever gets published at all.

For the time being, I would suggest that the claims made by the poster are hot air, not information. Once they are in fact published in a reputable scientific journal, there might be something interesting to discuss. For now -- nothing.

I would like to ask if you have seen a peer reviewed and verified study that shows a consensus of scientist agree that humans are causing global warming. The IPCC study that has been used to bolster the idea that there is a consensus hasn't been vetted in the way you want the study that shows there is no consensus.

So Scholfield is wrong to claim that there is a “consensus” that the modern warming is man-made and will be catastrophic. Like so many others who are confused by the current debate, he relies heavily on the claims of a United Nation’s agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which says its reports represent the views of some 2,000 scientists.

But the great majority of those scientists only comment on or contribute to a few pages of the much larger report. They expressly do not endorse the overall reports or the claims that appear in the “Summary for Policymakers,” which they do not help write or approve. Many of the scientists who participate in the IPCC process are, in fact, outspoken skeptics of man-made global warming.

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/arti...cfm?artId=21911

Is that the peer reviewed and properly vetted study? Is there somewhere else that shows this consensus of scientists say man is causing global warming? One that has passed your idea of a proper study? Please provide it if there is one.

[DeadPoolX 9]

What I find interesting about this entire debate (not just the one on VJ, but all around the world) is that it's such a "black-and-white" issue. It seems so many are convinced the problem has to either "human-made" or it's an "Earth cycle." Everyone seems so sure it's one or the other.

You know what? I think that's #######. I really do. I don't think it's an "either or" situation. I believe it's "both" that's causing the damage. I think the Earth goes through periodic cycles (sometimes it gets warmer and other times it gets colder) and what mankind is currently doing to the environment isn't helping matters any; at best, it's probably speeding the entire process up and at worst, it's killing off all sorts of animal and plant life.

It'd be nice if those in government and those working on this could actually see that side of it. I don't think it'll happen though.

After all, that'd require the great many politicians and researchers/scientists who're currently debating this could get off their butts, stop trying to "leave their mark" on humanity (and become famous or establish a legacy) and actually do something to fix the problem, instead of merely telling us "how bad it's getting or going to get."

[GaryC 7]

Not trying to beat a dead horse here but if you want the latest peer reviewed studies on GW here are a few to read.

A 2006 study by Danish researchers from Aarhus University found that “Greenland’s glaciers have been shrinking for the past century, suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming.” (LINK) Glaciologist Jacob Clement Yde explained that the study was “the most comprehensive ever conducted on the movements of Greenland’s glaciers, according to an August 21, 2006 article in Agence France-Presse. “Seventy percent of the glaciers have been shrinking regularly since the end of the 1880’s,” Yde explained. [EPW Blog note: 80% of man-made CO2 emissions occurred after 1940. (LINK) ] Niels Tvis Knudsen of Aarhus University co-authored the paper.

A 2006 study by a team of scientists led by Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences found the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995-2005, suggesting carbon dioxide ‘could not be the cause’ of warming. (LINK)

An October 2005 study in the journal Science found Greenland’s higher elevation interior ice sheet growing while lower elevations ice is thinning.

(link)

A June 6, 2006 peer-reviewed study published in Journal of Geophysical Research concluded: “The warmest year in the extended Greenland temperature record is 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s are the warmest decades.”

(link)

A February 8, 2007 peer-reviewed paper published in Science found the melt rate of two of Greenland’s largest glaciers has “suddenly slowed, bringing the rate of melting last year down to near the previous rate.”

(link)

A July 6, 2007 study published in the journal Science about Greenland by an international team of scientists found DNA “evidence that suggests the frozen shield covering the immense island survived the Earth’s last period of global warming,” according to a Boston Globe article.

(link)

This one I really like and is germane to the topic of AlGore

Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels of University of Virginia and the Virginia State climatologist wrote the scenario promoted by former Vice President Al Gore and others showing Greenland’s ice melting and raising sea levels by 20 feet is not supported anywhere in scientific literature, not even by the United Nations.

(link)

Physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the former director of both University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Geophysical Institute and International Arctic Research Center who has twice been named one of the "1000 Most Cited Scientists," told a Congressional hearing in 2006 that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than “science fiction.”

(link)

Prominent scientist Professor Nils-Axel Morner, declared "the rapid rise in sea levels predicted by computer models simply cannot happen."

(link)

Current climate fears tends to ignore the fact that the Vikings arrived in Greenland around 1000 A.D. and found it to be habitable settlement that they farmed for hundreds of years. A 2003 Harvard University study found (LINK) the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period from about 800 to 1300 A.D. without modern SUV’s or man-made CO2 emissions. The Vikings abandoned Greenland when the Little Ice Age took hold.

I love this one

Top UN Scientist Explains Why Climate Models Predictions Are Failing

Recently, a top UN scientist publicly conceded that climate computer model predictions are not so reliable after all. Dr. Jim Renwick, a lead author of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, admitted to the New Zealand Herald in June 2007, “Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well." (LINK)

A leading scientific skeptic of global warming fears, meteorologist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, took the critique of climate models that predict future doom a step further. Tennekes wrote on February 28, 2007, "I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their products to society." (LINK)

Ivy League geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack of the University of Pennsylvania noted “for most of Earth’s history, the globe has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has rarely been cooler,” Giegengack said according to a February 2007 article in Philadelphia Magazine. (LINK) The article continued, “[Giegengack] says carbon dioxide doesn’t control global temperature, and certainly not in a direct linear way.”

Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball explained that one of the reasons climate models fail is because they overestimate the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Ball described how CO2's warming impact diminishes. “Even if CO2 concentration doubles or triples, the effect on temperature would be minimal. The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint,” Ball explained in a June 6, 2007 article in Canada Free Press. (LINK)

Global warming stopped in 1998.

Dr. Nigel Calder, co-author with physicist Henrik Svensmark of the 2007 book “The Chilling Stars: A New Theory on Climate Change,” explained in July 2007:

“In reality, global temperatures have stopped rising. Data for both the surface and the lower air show no warming since 1999. That makes no sense by the hypothesis of global warming driven mainly by CO2, because the amount of CO2 in the air has gone on increasing. But the fact that the Sun is beginning to neglect its climatic duty – of battling away the cosmic rays that come from ‘the chilling stars’ – fits beautifully with this apparent end of global warming.”

Perhaps the conversion of many former scientists from believers in man-made global warming to skeptics (LINK) and the new peer-reviewed research is why so many proponents of a climatic doom have resorted to threats and intimidation in attempting to silence skeptics. (See: EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic - LINK )

One final note: To many residents of Greenland, a little warming may not be that bad. A June 7, 2007 Washington Post article detailed how Greenland’s residents were “cheering’ on warming. "I can keep the sheep out two weeks longer to feed in hills in the autumn. And I can grow more hay. The sheep get fatter," said one resident. (LINK)

Some more links:

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic

Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical

MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming 'Silly' - Equates Concerns to ‘Little Kids’ Attempting to "Scare Each Other"

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What's odd to me is how that fringe element in the US thinks that they have it all figured out while the rest of the world has got it wrong. As I said earlier, there were the same type debates between the reasonable and the deniers when the scientific community came to a consensus that CFC's are tearing a hole into the ozone layer and that a change of course will be required to avoid a disaster. There will always be a fringe element that cannot accept some inconvenient truths. And while they're typically loud and all I take comfort in knowing that in the end they tend to matter little.

Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory

Survey of peer reviewed studies reveals less than 50% of published scientists believe global warming is man made. More skeptics than advocates among scientific community while IPCC claim majority endorse the theory .

Has this piece actually been published in a scientific publication and been subjected to peer review?

I guess you didn't understand what this was. It's a survey of scientific papers on global warming published over the last few years. It shows that a majority of published papers by all scientists do not think that global warming is man made. In other words the consensus is in reality that man is not causing global warming.

Gary, look here. The author makes a claim as to the methodology of his "research". How is that claim substantiated if there is no peer review? He sought to have it published and was actually shot down on that attempt (see below). Remember, whatever this medical doctor - hardly an expert on climate - thought he found has never been published or reviewed. It is therefore not much more than an opinion piece. And opinions are like arseholes. Everybody has one.

The celebrated research by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, claiming that a legitimate debate still continues over the science behind climate change, is "a bit patchy and nothing new," according to Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen , editor of the Energy and Environment journal to which Schulte had submitted the work for publication.

It is "not what was of interest to me" and will not be published, Boehmer Christiansen said (in email correspondence reproduced in full at the end of this post).

(Thus, it turns out that the only way you could justify calling Schulte's work "peer-reviewed" is by pointing out that his biggest fan, Christopher Walter, is the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley {Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a retired British international business consultant, policy advisor, writer, and inventor. He served as an advisor to Margaret Thatcher and has attracted controversy for his public opposition to the mainstream scientific consensus on global warming and climate change.} - a British peer.)

Source

Edited October 14, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What I find interesting about this entire debate (not just the one on VJ, but all around the world) is that it's such a "black-and-white" issue. It seems so many are convinced the problem has to either "human-made" or it's an "Earth cycle." Everyone seems so sure it's one or the other.

Actually, according to the opinion piece written by this medical doctor which Gary introduced here in lieu of actual scientific material, a majority (48%) is not exactly tilting either way refusing to either accept or reject the theory that GW is man made. Only 6% reject it, 7% expressively accept it and 38% tend to accept it without expressively saying so. That puts - in various shades of gray - 94% in the column of those unwilling to reject the theory of man-made global warming and 54% in the column that are unwilling to accept it. The issue seems Black-and-White only to a small portion (13%).

Edited October 14, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory

Survey of peer reviewed studies reveals less than 50% of published scientists believe global warming is man made. More skeptics than advocates among scientific community while IPCC claim majority endorse the theory .

Infowars.net | August 30 , 2007

Steve Watson

A new survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, has concluded that less than half endorse what has been dubbed the "consensus view," that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change.

In direct conflict with assertions by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a scientific consensus agrees it is 90% likely that man is responsible for warming, Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte's survey contends that only 45% support the theory and that is only if you include papers that merely lean towards endorsement.

Though the survey has not yet been released, the results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment , and science blog DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy which states:

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

Man made warming proponents have often pointed to a similar survey that was conducted by history professor Naomi Oreskes on peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003 which found that a majority of scientists supported the theory.

Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte sought to update the research and according to DailyTech, used the same database and search terms as Oreskes but reached a radically different conclusion.

The introduction and the summary of the IPCC's report was written entirely by politicians under the mandate of the UN, the input of actual scientists was minimal. In addition, all sections that were written by selected scientists were edited to comply with the report summary.

Some of the scientists involved even admitted that the IPCC models failed to accurately predict climate change and that "none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate".

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world and is not directly influenced by any governmental body.

Schulte's survey confirms the claim that the climate change momentum has shifted among prominent scientists who are now benefiting from a greater depth of research. A spate of new research papers has significantly chilled fears of global warming.

The new survey provides undeniable proof that the world is being sold a lie on climate change by a group of politicians and elite lobbyists who wish to seize on the opportunity to hype the global warming threat and use it as a means of social manipulation for political and corporate gain.

As we have extensively reported, it is the elites, the establishment and big business interests that are pushing these fears , not the scientific community.

People who still trust the platitudes of politicians and elitists who implore us to change our way of life, cough up more tax money, and get on board with the global warming religion save being linked with Holocaust denial, are as deluded and enslaved as the tribes of Mesoamerica who, unaware of the natural phenomenon of a solar eclipse, thought their high priests could make the sky snake eat the Sun, and therefore obeyed their every demand.

Politicians are professional liars, they make careers out of deceiving people and twisting reality to fit pre-conceived agendas, yet a cascade of otherwise rationally minded people are eager to blindly trust everything they have to say about climate change, no matter how delusional it sounds.

They are also willing to comply with the ridiculous overbearing "solutions" to climate change that will just coincidentally restrict mobility and freedom of travel, regulate personal behavior, empower and expand global government and reinvigorate the surveillance state - everything Big Brother ever wanted - but surely they wouldn't lie to us about global warming to achieve it, would they?

For a wealth of information on the man made global warming hoax check our archive which has scores of articles and multimedia files relating to the science of global warming as well as the agenda behind the hype.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/g...ade_warming.htm

Gary - that article is not 'definitive truth'. I pointed that out to you when you first posted it some months ago. There are significant questions over the methodology, not only in this study - where it isn't at all clear - but in the original study by Oreskes.

The flaw identified by Oreskes in her study related to the key word search, specifically looked into by Schulte? And how closely does Schulte's methodology resemble that of Barry Peisner?

This is not an unreasonable question, from a researchers point of view, but can you authoritatively answer it? I'd say not (afraid I can't either). For one thing, neither of us has the data to hand... So definitive, conclusive proof? Hardly...

Some more info from Wikipedia

Oreskes wrote an essay on science and society BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change[1] in the journal Science in December 2004.

In the essay she reported analysis of “928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and published in the ISI database with the keywords ‘climate change’”.[2] [3]. The essay stated the analysis was test the hypothesis that the drafting of reports and statements by societies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Association for the Advancement of Science and National Academy of Sciences might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions on anthropogenic climate change. After the analysis, she concluded that 75% of the examined abstracts either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it. A flaw in the essay was, as Oreskes later conceded, that the keywords searched weren’t “climate change”, but “global climate change”. The search was also restricted to certain sections of the database that were not listed in the essay.

Her conclusions were directly challenged by Benny Peiser, who enumerated the figure of backing the consensus view at closer to only 30% [2]. However, Peiser’s letters to Science[4] on the subject were rejected by the editors. Peiser claimed that he had repeated Oreskes' search and had found 35 articles that supported the position that global warming was not caused by human action. It was subsequently revealed that his search criteria were not the same as Oreskes's, due to the flaws mentioned above -- not using the same search terms and not excluding any parts of the database, which resulted in his finding more abstracts than Oreskes had. Also, as Peiser's search included articles which had not been peer reviewed, op-ed articles in journals such as the American Association of Petroleum Geologists were in his list of 35 abstracts. Regardless, many critical readers of Peiser's list have claimed that most of the papers he cites do not in fact contest the IPCC's position on Anthopogenic Climate Change. Dr. Peiser has recently conceded in a letter to the Australian Media Watch that he no longer maintains parts of his criticisms. [3]

Oreskes has responded to criticisms such as this, including those from Richard Lindzen, with a later editorial in The Washington Post[4].

Here is a statement in relation to Benny Peiser's criticism of the original study by Oreskes.

From: Peiser, Benny

Sent: Thursday, 12 October 2006 7:04 PM

To: sarah curnow

Cc: Sarah Curnow

Subject: RE: Media Watch enquiry

Dear Sarah Curnow

Thank you for your interest.

Here are the answers to your questions.

> You did not re-assess the same 928 articles Professor Oreskes assessed?

In my original critique of Prof Oreskes' study, I used the *same ISI database and the same key words* as Oreskes but used *all documents* listed therein. Prof Oreskes did not specify the method she applied in her study, and only later confirmed that she had limited her search to "articles", while I included "all document types" in my initial assessment. This difference appears to explain the discrepancy between the "928" abstracts Oreskes claims to have analysed and the 1117 documents I found and considered.

> I understand the impact of her use of the "global climate change" search terms. Your first letter to Science makes it clear, you conducted your own search and found 1247 articles, of which

only 1117 had abstracts, so you studied these 1117 articles.

In her Science essay, Oreskes claimed to have used the key words "climate change" - the ISI databank includes almost 12,000 documents with these key words.

> Prof Oreskes selected a sample of almost 10% of the peer-reviewed articles on global warming.

I'm afraid that is not the case. The vast majority of abstracts in her sample do not deal with anthropogenic global warming at all.

> That approx 10% was a total of 928 articles.

Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI Web of Knowledge database (1993 - 2003) using the keywords "global climate change." However, this claim is incorrect: while the ISI database includes a total of 929 documents for the period in question, it lists only 905 abstracts. It is thus impossible that Oreskes analysed 928 abstracts. I have listed *all* abstracts in question on my website at http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm

> do you know whether the 928 articles she studied were included in the 1117 articles you studied?

Yes

> This indicates that you selected your own sample group.

As I explained above, I included *all* documents (i.e. 1247) whereas Oreskes only used "articles" (however, there are only 905 abstracts in the ISI databank)

> It implies that, given this methodology, the 34 articles you found that "reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the observed warming over the last 50 years" may not have been included in the 928 articles randomly selected by Prof Oreskes. Is this possible?

Yes, that is indeed the case. I only found out after Oreskes confirmed that she had used a different search strategy (see above). Which is why I no longer maintain this particular criticism. In addition, some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included.

> If so, her findings and your (different) findings can be compatible.

Please note that the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that *explicitly* endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.' The vast majority of abstracts do not deal with or mention anthropogenic global warming whatsoever. I also maintain that she ignored a few abstracts that explicitly reject what she calls the consensus view. You can check for yourself at http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm

> Why do you believe your research is significant?

I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.

Despite all claims to the contrary, there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active. Hardly a week goes by without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory. (For the latest developments, see http://greenspin.blogspot.com/2006/10/do-i...blings-of.html)

Undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority. But as long as the possible impacts of global warming remain uncertain, the public is justified to keep an open mind. How decision-makers deal with these scientific uncertainties is another matter. But it is vital for the health and integrity of science that critical evaluation and scepticism are not scorned or curbed for political reasons.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf

[Widge 0]

And I'm not trying to bring Bush really into this either...but there's a guy who hasn't built his career on an environmental message, but he's walking the walk.

I think his little wet-dream adventure in Iraq has messed his footprint up beyond repair.

along with the national debt and countless thousands of lives

and that relates to this how?

it most probably doesn't but it was a statement of fact that I just couldn't resist adding oops bad me must stay on topic

Perhaps Congress shouldn't have given him authority to go to war. Without their approval, Bush would've been reduced to a neutered puppy. Regardless of where you fall on the political scale...that is fact.

giving someone approbal to go to war (based I might add on misinformation) and actually doing it are two totaally different things but like you said musn't talk war here so oops bad you.

But people hear and read only what they want & selective blindness runs rampant!

and if ever more proof were needed read this thread

Widge, I am going off on a tangent here, and I hope you don't take it personally cos I've quoted your post to do so...

hey attack me all you want if I can't take the heat I stay outta da kitchen

but omG, how ridiculous is this justification game that goes on here at VJ? Comparing two things to one another...one bad, the other worse...and using the worse off one to make the bad somehow 'less bad'.

actually it isn't a "ridiculous" "game" sometimes its just a perfectly reasonable perspective because in the grownup world NOTHING is ever black and white

Someone here biotches that an illegal killed someone....so someone else says 'well there's a lot of homegrown murderers too!'

statement of fact but it's equally as bad to label all illegals murders or all american citizens as saints

someone mentions visa fraud with a lying & dishonest non-USC partner and someone will say 'yeah but my ex husband was worse and he was American'

probably true to

and now we're talking about a carbon footprint...but now it's being compared to a legal war?

I might question the legal war arguement, if you hadnt told me I couldn't mention it I'd state "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133." http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/ How could he give up what he never had so was it legal?????

Yes, I brought Bush up as an illustration of his home in TX only.

precisely like every other contributor you were cherry picking bits to fit your position

Not to justify some 'do as I say not as I do and I bought a carbon offset credit' bullsh!t from someone who's supposed to be some sort of environmentalist.

actually comparing a 60yr old house with a small new home is a loada bullshit to but if it fits your argument go for it, I suspect unless he was walking round in sack cloth and ashes you wouldn't be happy his offset stuff is an attempt on his part to right his environment would it be better if he didn't, he drives hybrid cars but its all an irrelevance

I actually prefer his approach to the Bush one

"Bush declares war on environment

March 23, 2001

Web posted at: 12:20 p.m. EST (1720 GMT)

By Bill Press

Tribune Media Services

WASHINGTON (Tribune Media Services) -- How many ways did George Bush find to destroy the environment today?

Chainsaw in hand, Bush has rolled back virtually every environmental regulation issued by Bill Clinton in his final months in office -- and turned environmental decision-making over to the major polluters. Whatever the logging and mining companies want, the logging and mining companies get.

In barely 60 days, Bush has attacked clean air, clean water, national forests and federally protected lands. And he hasn't even started on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge yet. This guy makes Ronald Reagan look like John Muir.

How far is Bush willing to go? Consider this. He'll even leave more arsenic -- yes, arsenic! -- in your drinking water, if that's what the mining companies want. They do. He just did.

Acting on orders from the White House, EPA Administrator Christie Whitman stopped implementation of new rules, scheduled to take effect March 23, reducing the level of arsenic in drinking water. Current regulations, adopted way back in 1942, allow 50 parts per billion; new rules would have reduced that to 10 parts per billion.

You almost have to feel sorry for the hapless Whitman. She came to Washington, having built a good conservation record as governor of New Jersey, hoping to be the chief environmentalist of the new administration. Instead, she's been made to play the role of chief hatchet lady. She tried to defend suspension of the tougher, new arsenic rules by saying more scientific study was needed. Nonsense.

Excessive levels of arsenic in drinking water -- caused, in part, by run-off from mining operations in Western states -- have been identified by the National Academy of Sciences as a cause of bladder, lung and kidney cancer. How much more study is needed? The problem wasn't lack of scientific evidence. The problem was opposition from the mining industry.

It was the second straight day Bush caved in to mining interests. In another little-publicized action, the EPA cancelled new regulations on mining on federal lands. These rules, also adopted during the last few weeks of the Clinton presidency, merely required hardrock miners, operating on federally-owned lands, to post a bond guaranteeing to clean up their sites when finished in order to prevent groundwater contamination. One would think that would be standard procedure. But mining companies balked. And Bush walked.

At the same time, the Justice Department is in federal court, seeking to delay implementation of a ban on new roads and virtually all logging in 58.5 million acres of national forests. Those rules were adopted 3 days before Bill Clinton left office. The timber industry doesn't like them. Out the window!

But Bush's environmental assault doesn't stop there. That's just the beginning. Just last week, remember, he first forced Christie Whitman to walk the plank, reversing her commitment -- and breaking his own campaign promise -- to add carbon dioxide to the list of regulated pollutants in order to help prevent global warming. Again, science said yes. Utilities and mining companies said no. Bush suddenly changed his mind.

Now Prime Minister ####### Cheney has taken the anti-global warming crusade one giant step further. Appearing on MSNBC's "Hardball" on March 21, Cheney said the solution to clean air was to bring back nuclear power plants: "If you're really serious about greenhouse gases, one of the solutions to that problem is to go back and let's take another look at nuclear power, use that to generate electricity without having any adverse consequences."

No adverse consequences? Tell that to the people of Chernobyl. Or Three Mile Island. There's a good reason why no new nuclear power plant has been authorized in the United States since 1975. But that won't stop Cheney and Bush in their zeal to destroy the planet.

Next target, of course, is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. No doubt Bush will soon unveil plans to hand over to big oil companies our last and greatest expanse of wilderness, first recognized and protected as a national treasure by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. But that's not all. Department of Interior sources say Bush's energy plan will also call for new drilling off the coast of California. Damn the environment. Full speed ahead!

Now here's the spin. Bush and Cheney say they aren't out to destroy the environment, they're just out to provide a little "balance." Balance? After clear-cutting the forest, strip-mining the land, polluting the air and water and destroying the wilderness, where's the balance on the other side? There is none. There is no environment left.

George Bush has declared war on the environment. Quick! Does Ralph Nader still believe there's no difference between Bush and Gore?" http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/0...ress/index.html

it's possible to find any argument for any case

But eh....it's vj so *sheesh*

But eh....it's vj so *sheesh*

[Caladan 19]

What I find interesting about this entire debate (not just the one on VJ, but all around the world) is that it's such a "black-and-white" issue. It seems so many are convinced the problem has to either "human-made" or it's an "Earth cycle." Everyone seems so sure it's one or the other.

You know what? I think that's #######. I really do. I don't think it's an "either or" situation. I believe it's "both" that's causing the damage. I think the Earth goes through periodic cycles (sometimes it gets warmer and other times it gets colder) and what mankind is currently doing to the environment isn't helping matters any; at best, it's probably speeding the entire process up and at worst, it's killing off all sorts of animal and plant life.

It'd be nice if those in government and those working on this could actually see that side of it. I don't think it'll happen though.

After all, that'd require the great many politicians and researchers/scientists who're currently debating this could get off their butts, stop trying to "leave their mark" on humanity (and become famous or establish a legacy) and actually do something to fix the problem, instead of merely telling us "how bad it's getting or going to get."

It's framed as black or white because one side insists the terms are mutually exclusive. If you read some of the studies, the scientists do try to control for the cycles of the Earth's temperature; what's alarming them is the difference from the expected cycle, and the speed of the change, not the change simpliciter.

[Widge 0]

I have redone my previous post as it wouldn't let me edit and it wasn't clear which were my replies to Lisa's comments aimed at me (memo to self drink more coffe before posting in the morning) my replies are in bold lol

and that relates to this how?

it most probably doesn't but it was a statement of fact that I just couldn't resist adding oops bad me must stay on topic

Perhaps Congress shouldn't have given him authority to go to war. Without their approval, Bush would've been reduced to a neutered puppy. Regardless of where you fall on the political scale...that is fact.

giving someone approval to go to war (based I might add on misinformation) and actually doing it are two totaally different things but like you said musn't talk war here so oops bad you.

But people hear and read only what they want & selective blindness runs rampant!

and if ever more proof were needed read this thread

Widge, I am going off on a tangent here, and I hope you don't take it personally cos I've quoted your post to do so...

hey attack me all you want if I can't take the heat I stay outta da kitchen

but omG, how ridiculous is this justification game that goes on here at VJ? Comparing two things to one another...one bad, the other worse...and using the worse off one to make the bad somehow 'less bad'.

actually it isn't a "ridiculous" "game" sometimes its just a perfectly reasonable perspective because in the grownup world NOTHING is ever black and white

Someone here biotches that an illegal killed someone....so someone else says 'well there's a lot of homegrown murderers too!'

statement of fact but it's equally as bad to label all illegals murders or all american citizens as saints

someone mentions visa fraud with a lying & dishonest non-USC partner and someone will say 'yeah but my ex husband was worse and he was American'

probably true to

and now we're talking about a carbon footprint...but now it's being compared to a legal war?

I might question the legal war arguement, if you hadnt told me I couldn't mention it I'd state "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133." http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/ How could he give up what he never had so was it legal?????

Yes, I brought Bush up as an illustration of his home in TX only.

precisely like every other contributor you were cherry picking bits to fit your position

Not to justify some 'do as I say not as I do and I bought a carbon offset credit' bullsh!t from someone who's supposed to be some sort of environmentalist.

actually comparing a 60yr old house with a small new home is a loada bullshit to but if it fits your argument go for it, I suspect unless he was walking round in sack cloth and ashes you wouldn't be happy his offset stuff is an attempt on his part to right his environment would it be better if he didn't, he drives hybrid cars but its all an irrelevance

I actually prefer his approach to the Bush one

"Bush declares war on environment

March 23, 2001

Web posted at: 12:20 p.m. EST (1720 GMT)

By Bill Press

Tribune Media Services

WASHINGTON (Tribune Media Services) -- How many ways did George Bush find to destroy the environment today?

Chainsaw in hand, Bush has rolled back virtually every environmental regulation issued by Bill Clinton in his final months in office -- and turned environmental decision-making over to the major polluters. Whatever the logging and mining companies want, the logging and mining companies get.

In barely 60 days, Bush has attacked clean air, clean water, national forests and federally protected lands. And he hasn't even started on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge yet. This guy makes Ronald Reagan look like John Muir.

How far is Bush willing to go? Consider this. He'll even leave more arsenic -- yes, arsenic! -- in your drinking water, if that's what the mining companies want. They do. He just did.

Acting on orders from the White House, EPA Administrator Christie Whitman stopped implementation of new rules, scheduled to take effect March 23, reducing the level of arsenic in drinking water. Current regulations, adopted way back in 1942, allow 50 parts per billion; new rules would have reduced that to 10 parts per billion.

You almost have to feel sorry for the hapless Whitman. She came to Washington, having built a good conservation record as governor of New Jersey, hoping to be the chief environmentalist of the new administration. Instead, she's been made to play the role of chief hatchet lady. She tried to defend suspension of the tougher, new arsenic rules by saying more scientific study was needed. Nonsense.

Excessive levels of arsenic in drinking water -- caused, in part, by run-off from mining operations in Western states -- have been identified by the National Academy of Sciences as a cause of bladder, lung and kidney cancer. How much more study is needed? The problem wasn't lack of scientific evidence. The problem was opposition from the mining industry.

It was the second straight day Bush caved in to mining interests. In another little-publicized action, the EPA cancelled new regulations on mining on federal lands. These rules, also adopted during the last few weeks of the Clinton presidency, merely required hardrock miners, operating on federally-owned lands, to post a bond guaranteeing to clean up their sites when finished in order to prevent groundwater contamination. One would think that would be standard procedure. But mining companies balked. And Bush walked.

At the same time, the Justice Department is in federal court, seeking to delay implementation of a ban on new roads and virtually all logging in 58.5 million acres of national forests. Those rules were adopted 3 days before Bill Clinton left office. The timber industry doesn't like them. Out the window!

But Bush's environmental assault doesn't stop there. That's just the beginning. Just last week, remember, he first forced Christie Whitman to walk the plank, reversing her commitment -- and breaking his own campaign promise -- to add carbon dioxide to the list of regulated pollutants in order to help prevent global warming. Again, science said yes. Utilities and mining companies said no. Bush suddenly changed his mind.

Now Prime Minister ####### Cheney has taken the anti-global warming crusade one giant step further. Appearing on MSNBC's "Hardball" on March 21, Cheney said the solution to clean air was to bring back nuclear power plants: "If you're really serious about greenhouse gases, one of the solutions to that problem is to go back and let's take another look at nuclear power, use that to generate electricity without having any adverse consequences."

No adverse consequences? Tell that to the people of Chernobyl. Or Three Mile Island. There's a good reason why no new nuclear power plant has been authorized in the United States since 1975. But that won't stop Cheney and Bush in their zeal to destroy the planet.

Next target, of course, is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. No doubt Bush will soon unveil plans to hand over to big oil companies our last and greatest expanse of wilderness, first recognized and protected as a national treasure by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. But that's not all. Department of Interior sources say Bush's energy plan will also call for new drilling off the coast of California. Damn the environment. Full speed ahead!

Now here's the spin. Bush and Cheney say they aren't out to destroy the environment, they're just out to provide a little "balance." Balance? After clear-cutting the forest, strip-mining the land, polluting the air and water and destroying the wilderness, where's the balance on the other side? There is none. There is no environment left.

George Bush has declared war on the environment. Quick! Does Ralph Nader still believe there's no difference between Bush and Gore?" http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/0...ress/index.html

it's possible to find any argument for any case

But eh....it's vj so *sheesh*

But eh....it's vj so *sheesh*

[Fandango 1,440]

Widge...I don't have time to fix your quotes....but I will say this: Bush is no environmentalist. So why is it ok that his house is wayyyyyyyyyyyyy more green than someone who's collecting a Nobel Prize for environmental work?

Seriously...he didn't talk about how his house was different and he 'worked at home' and 'carbon credits' and the like. His house is green. No excuses. So doesn't it stand to reason that AG's should be just as green...if not moreso? Let alone being so much worse it's laughable!

oh...forgot to add this: you call it 'perspective' I call it bullsh!t rationalization and excuse making. Justifying a non-green lifestyle by comparing it to war is just a little bit off the mark.

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

Widge...I don't have time to fix your quotes....but I will say this: Bush is no environmentalist. So why is it ok that his house is wayyyyyyyyyyyyy more green than someone who's collecting a Nobel Prize for environmental work?

LOL...oh Lisa, Lisa, Lisa. Al Gore didn't win the Nobel for how green his home is. But keep reaching for straws.