FREEZY AL

This week’s Continuing Crisis column for the Bulletin delights in the global chilling caused by Al Gore.

UPDATE. Gore’s chilling effect reduces movie audiences, too:

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” has seen its ticket sales plummet after a promising start …

The film dropped from its record $70,333 per play to $12,334 during its third week and its numbers have continued to fall as the film opens in smaller cities and suburbs across the country.

Brrrr! Via Jim Treacher. Meanwhile, an Associated Press attempt to maintain consensus is under threat:

The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Posted by Tim B. on 06/27/2006 at 01:35 PM
    1. Well, if Gorebot keeps it up, we’re gonna end up with that ice age they were yapping about back in the 70s.  Somebody, please, tell him to put a cork in it!

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 06 27 at 02:11 PM • permalink

 

    1. See? Gore’s right. All his hot air is proof that cold temperatures prove we got global warming. Or cooling. Or something.

      Posted by Gary from Jersey on 2006 06 27 at 03:13 PM • permalink

 

    1. More absurdly biased reporting by the media:

      Scientists Ok Gore’s Movie for Accuracy

      The nation’s top climate scientists are giving “An Inconvenient Truth,”      Al Gore’s documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

      Of course, a few lines down we see this:

      The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

      But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

      In other words, 100% of the whackos who had nothing better to do with their time than go see this movie thought it was great. And these the AP identifies as “The nation’s top climate scientists.” Yeah, right.

      Posted by Jim on 2006 06 27 at 03:18 PM • permalink

 

    1. Now, I’m not a scientist (which puts me in the same class with Gore, actually). But I have this vague recollection of reading somewhere that, even if every country in the world signed on to Kyoto, and even if every country was willing and able to bear the staggering economic costs, and even if we all went back to living in mud and wattle huts and driving our ox carts to work in the organic orchards and wheat fields, it would only forestall the benchmark for dangerous greenhouse/warming levels by six years. What do we do then?

      Posted by paco on 2006 06 27 at 03:18 PM • permalink

 

    1. Right, Tim. Now Al has the amunition he needs to take credit for stopping global warming. First he gave us the Internet, now he’s stopped global warming with some speeches and a boring movie. He doesn’t need to wim elections when he’s this powerful, he can just appoint himself God.

      Posted by Retread on 2006 06 27 at 03:57 PM • permalink

 

    1. He doesn’t need to wim elections when he’s this powerful, he can just appoint himself God.

      Maybe we can get the Great God Gorebot to meet the Great God Kos in the arena. We’ll call it Clash of the Titans and sell tickets. A fight to the death of course; either way, we win.

      Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 06 27 at 04:26 PM • permalink

 

    1. Hi Tim
      Why hasn’t anyone put two and two together about Alkatiri being a Muslim leader and forming a secretly armed hit squad to silence his opponents.  Is this just so ‘ho hum’ that this is what is always expected from Muslim leaders?

      Posted by LuvDaKartoons on 2006 06 27 at 04:28 PM • permalink

 

    1. Try an alternative view at: http://www.lavoisier.com.au

      Posted by chrisgo on 2006 06 27 at 05:08 PM • permalink

 

    1. F’reeze a jolly good fellow!

      Posted by AlburyShifton on 2006 06 27 at 05:08 PM • permalink

 

    1. I’d like to see an anti-global-warming documentary.

      Posted by daddy dave on 2006 06 27 at 05:10 PM • permalink

 

    1. #8 great link chrisgo- especially the document “nine lies about global warming.” That link should be the first response to trolls and doomsayers.
      All available evidence suggests that the ocean levels are not rising. Even if the entire arctic ice sheet melts, it would not make much difference. Ice melting in a bucket does not make the water level in the bucket rise!

      Posted by daddy dave on 2006 06 27 at 05:27 PM • permalink

 

    1. O/T but I’d be interested to see if anyone out there in a position to make an estimate of numbers at industrial relations rallies in Sydney and Melbourne today.

      (Prediction: the media will report whatever union officials tell them, and this will be approximately triple the actual numbers.)

      Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 06 27 at 07:11 PM • permalink

 

    1. #4 Paco, use your imagination:
      …and even if we all went back to living in mud and wattle huts and driving our ox carts to work in the organic orchards and wheat fields, it would only forestall the benchmark for dangerous greenhouse/warming levels by six years. What do we do then?

      We would spend all our free time planting trees and worshipping them, of course.

      Posted by Barrie on 2006 06 27 at 07:52 PM • permalink

 

    1. #7
      Alkatiri being a Muslim leader and forming a secretly armed hit squad to silence his opponents.  .. what is always expected from Muslim leaders?

      Actually it’s even more typical of a Marxist.  Alkatiri is an old-type Marxist too. Even ex-communists in Australia [eg Mark Aarons] say that Fretilin hasn’t changed from the early 70s.

      Posted by Barrie on 2006 06 27 at 07:58 PM • permalink

 

    1. O/T

      Abdallah Mohammed from Griffith University just on Madonna King’s ABC 612 radio programme talking about a research project to investigate/study the lives of young Queensland Mooselims (that’s how he pronounced it), aged between 9 and 19 and how the are coping with the racism and villification and being identified as terrorists.. (yadda yadda yadda) which is affecting their lives, especially since 9/11 and Iraq, what effects this has had on their lives. (I mean, why on earth would people think that Mooslims were terrorists/crazy/murderers/death-cult members? There is just no connection, is there? – and he actually said something along these lines, that people have identified Muslims as terrorists… I just don’t know why people would make this connection…)
      He was also saying that Mooselims are Nationalistic, and in many countries their nationalism has overtaken their religion.
      Where would that be?
      The word ‘deluded victim’ comes to mind.

      Who is paying for this ‘survey/research’?

      Probably my tax dollars.

      Paper by Mohammad Abdallah

      Posted by kae on 2006 06 27 at 08:01 PM • permalink

 

    1. These sudden cold snaps whenever AntiChrist Al opens his mouth are a traditional harbinger of the appearance of the Devil.

      We don’t carbon credits, we need an exorcist!

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 06 27 at 08:35 PM • permalink

 

    1. #15, kae

      See Daniel Pipes in today’s Australian.

      He’s writing about the results of “a global survey” into what many Muslims really think.  No surprises really.

      Posted by Janice on 2006 06 27 at 08:39 PM • permalink

 

    1. That’s why it is climate change Tim not global warming. Cold weather is just as much a sign of ALpocalypse as warm weather. so is drought and flood, rain and shine, earthquakes, tsnuamis and phases of the moon.

      Posted by The (WHMECDM) President on 2006 06 27 at 08:56 PM • permalink

 

    1. What very radical Moslems think:
      1. They love American Idol
      2. They are fans of American media films – such as “Citizen ‘Rosebud’ Kane”?

      “Zarqawi was obviously a great McPhee fan,” said Kelly. “But, of course, what disgusts us is that he broke the rules when he voted for her. After all, he is not an American citizen, or even a resident of the United States.”

      Kelly also confirmed reports that Zarqawi was still alive when U.S. soldiers arrives on the scene, and that he spoke, trying to get off the stretcher Iraqi forces had put him on. “All I heard him say,” said Kelly, “was ‘al-Rosebud, al-Rosebud, over and over. I don’t have a clue what he meant. We’re thinking it might be some kind of Arab dessert he liked as a child.”

      Marni Malarkey for Iconoclast

      Posted by Barrie on 2006 06 27 at 09:14 PM • permalink

 

    1. #17 Janice

      Harrumph. If it’s already been done why waste bucks doing it again?

      As you said, “No surprises really”.

      Posted by kae on 2006 06 27 at 09:15 PM • permalink

 

    1. Climate change, Tim, climate change.

      Posted by Max on 2006 06 27 at 09:23 PM • permalink

 

    1. #7- I think you’ll find ol’ Alky is a Moslem in name only– he’s in the thrall of a much more murderous and demented deity than that Allah feller.

      Posted by Habib on 2006 06 27 at 09:53 PM • permalink

 

    1. All this clamour about global warming whoops I mean climate change reminds me of Marty Feldman’s Weather Report.

      Nothing’s changed really.

      Posted by Wand on 2006 06 27 at 10:02 PM • permalink

 

    1. Well, at least Al can Cool the Box Office 

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 06 27 at 10:34 PM • permalink

 

    1. #7 Yes, it’s funny how the MSM are not exactly deluging us with political background to the troubles in East Timor (unless I’m looking in the wrong places).  All I tend to hear is blah-blah about how the guys from the east side don’t like the guys from the west side.  During a sound grab on ABC this morning, you could hear anti-Alkatiri mobs shouting that he was a ‘communist’.  Interesting that the ABC is not rushing to fill us in on this particular dimension of the crisis.

      Posted by cuckoo on 2006 06 27 at 11:26 PM • permalink

 

    1. #10 Daddy Dave

      Michael Crichton has an anti-global warming
      book ready to be made into a movie, but it’ll probably be the only book he ever writes that’ll never be made into a movie.

      State of Fear

      Posted by Dave in Chicago on 2006 06 28 at 12:21 AM • permalink

 

    1. Excellent and well researched facts about Global Warming propaganda at:
      http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

      Posted by Gozza on 2006 06 28 at 12:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:

      The June 27, 2006 Associated Press (AP) article titled “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” by Seth Borenstein raises some serious questions about AP’s bias and methodology.

      AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

      LINK Read it all

      Posted by Hellbilly on 2006 06 28 at 02:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. One slight problem, Hellbilly:

      Majority Press Release

      That means it’s put out by Senate Republicans. Everything in it could be factually correct, but it will have absolutely no credibility with the Gaia-worshippers. I’m sure some dour troll will be along shortly to say just that.

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 2006 06 28 at 02:08 AM • permalink

 

    1. Tim,

      With your vast connections with big business and big oil, you should host a short film festival for conservatives to take the piss out of climate change alarmists.

      I’m thinking one of those education films on the Simpsons about the Moon or the benefits of Zinc would be a pisser.

      I’m sure exxon or somebody would put up a couple grand prize money.

      Posted by The (WHMECDM) President on 2006 06 28 at 02:11 AM • permalink

 

    1. There’s an interesting article over at TechCentralDaily, by Duane E. Freese, on the report of the NAS expert panel which looked into Michael Mann’s et al “hockey stick” (what started it all).  The article has many useful links.

      A quote from the NAS report, just to whet your appetite:

      Some of these criticisms (by McIntyre and McKitrick [who critized Mann’s methodology]) are more relevent than others, but taken togehter, they are an important aspect of a more general finding of this committee, which is that uncertainties of the published reconstructions have been underestimated.

      It’s new ammunition, people.  At least if it hasn’t been given elsewhere. 🙂 I haven’t been here for over a day.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 06 28 at 04:21 AM • permalink

 

    1. OT – once again Denmark displays a backbone. Via Gates of Vienna –  Historic Verdict on Honour Killing. Let’s hope there is no successful appeal.

      Posted by Renate on 2006 06 28 at 04:30 AM • permalink

 

    1. Indeed, it is an important verdict, given that the accomplices were also sent down. Heartening, but a small step.

      This is definitely a case of life imitating art, with the reaction to Al Gore’s real life film being similar to the reception his book was depicted as getting in one Simpsons episode.

      The contribution of the supporting scientists has certainly added a fair bit of hot air to the atmosphere, with their effusive rantings in favour in the end being only so much rancid effluvia.

      Posted by Simon Darkshade on 2006 06 28 at 05:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. (walks into blog, stopped by Spiny Norman)

      What?  Read this?  Why?  Oh, all right.

      Hellbilly, with regards to your comment, your citation was to a Majority Press Release.  That means—

      Why am I reading this?  Who says I have to?  Ok, ok. * Cough *

      —it’s put out by Senate Republicans. Everything in it could be factually correct, but it will have absolutely no credibility with the Gaia-worshippers.

      What?  This is bull shit.  And no, I refuse to wear that stupid troll costume—

      Posted by wronwright on 2006 06 28 at 05:19 AM • permalink

 

    1. You are as bad as a leaker to the NYT, wronwright.  You are supposed to have more finess that that.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 06 28 at 05:24 AM • permalink

 

    1. Thanks Al, I’m really enjoying the freezing temperatures down here in Melbourne!

      Posted by JamesP on 2006 06 28 at 05:29 AM • permalink

 

    1. With Al’s fairytale doing so poorly, I hope he doesn’t do something rash like running off to Guyana with his disciples to start up The Climate People’s Temple.

      Guyana punch, uh-oh uh-oh-oh…

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 06 28 at 05:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. There’s something here that a lot of folk are missing.

      There are some in that “eviro-whacknuts” movement the really do believe it’s all about humanity being basically evil. They believe that humanity should be wiped out. Some of these folk have jobs in colleges and universities and have influence upon those of their students that are most easily manipulated.

      There is, for example, one professor in the university system in the Texas area that has publicly stated before an audience that humanity should be reduced by approx 90% from current population levels for the long term health of the planet. He stated that some sort of air-born Ebola type virus would be the best vehicle for this population reduction.
      This particular professor manages post grads in the bio sciences. The last time I read up on his site, he was advertising the need for a micro-biology post grad with a back ground in genetics.

      How long to you really believe we have before we start seeing organizations pop up with openly expressed missions of depopulating the entire earth?
      Add to that, this. Many of those whom adhere to such grotesqueness will have the skills, abilities and access to the devices necessary to fulfill such aims.
      The networks are already being formed.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2006 06 28 at 06:09 AM • permalink

 

    1. My point exactly Grimmy.

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 06 28 at 06:35 AM • permalink

 

    1. Not a scientific evaluation of environmental claims. Just a ‘don’t worry’ post that makes weather observations but proves nil about trends in climate.

      And temperatures have risen.

      Some on the right is not really contributing to the debate on climate change at all. They are just saying – stop complaining and eat your popcorn.

      Posted by harryc on 2006 06 28 at 07:13 AM • permalink

 

    1. Oh, ye of little faith. Infidels! The formula is perfect and the math is done.

      Dance and trance, chant and rant to the al-Gore-rhythm.

      <The Grand Imam, Sheik Abu al-Gore>

      Posted by splice on 2006 06 28 at 07:32 AM • permalink

 

    1. I envy you Aussies.  Oh, to have a party in power who actually has the guts to challenge global warming orthodoxy.  The Republicans are spineless in the face of such glaring scientific holes.

      Posted by Mark V. on 2006 06 28 at 07:41 AM • permalink

 

    1. #38 “There are some in that “eviro-whacknuts” movement the really do believe it’s all about humanity being basically evil.”

      It really is like a religon with some of these people. This sounds like their version of orginal sin.

      Posted by Retread on 2006 06 28 at 07:42 AM • permalink

 

    1. Not a scientific evaluation of environmental claims. Just a ‘don’t worry’ post that makes weather observations but proves nil about trends in climate.

      Yeah, nothing substantial like “polar bears are drowning!”

      Here’s a hint, harry – see post #27? See that text in red? It’s called a “link”. Click on it with your mouse.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 06 28 at 07:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. #10

      You can watch a nice video debunking some of the science at Friends Of Science

      Posted by Jack Lacton on 2006 06 28 at 07:56 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hello Tim,

      The section regarding Gore’s film is inaccurate as illustrated here
      and here.
      Will you be correcting the error?

      Posted by gustov_deleft on 2006 06 28 at 09:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. This is kinda long, but this song from “The Golden Apple” (Jeremy Moross/John LaTouche) runs through my head every time I see Al maundering on:
      LADY SCIENTIST
      Oh, the polar cap is slowly expanding,
      In a million years we’ll freeze to death, I guess.
      If the Ice Age hasn’t floored us,
      There’s a planet heading toward us;
      When it hits, we’ll be an interstellar mess.
      Oh, the continent is crumbling and dissolving,
      As our rivers wash our topsoil out to sea.
      And the land we can retrieve’ll
      Be devoured by pest and weevil,
      And there won’t be nothing left for you and me.

      ALL
      Oh, we’re doomed, doomed, doomed,
      Oh, we’re doomed, doomed, doomed,
      Oh, we’re doomed to disappear without a trace.
      For the solar system’s cracking up,
      The universe is slacking up,
      And time is running out at a rather hectic pace.
      Oh, we’re doomed, doomed, doomed,
      Oh, we’re doomed, doomed, doomed,
      Oh, we’re doomed to disappear without a trace.
      Because all of us are just
      Little specks of cosmic dust,
      Oh, it’s doom, doom, doom for the well-known human race…”

      © 1954 by John LaTouche. All rights reserved.

      Maybe something for the Right Wing Death Beast Marching Choral?

      Posted by kiwinews on 2006 06 28 at 09:48 AM • permalink

 

    1. Geez Gusty, did you really spend all of that time googling for a contrary claim?
      You must be independently wealthy… that or a social program beneficiary.

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 06 28 at 10:07 AM • permalink

 

    1. I hope Seth Borenstein didn’t get splinters on his lips after kissing Gore’s ass. This media frenzy attempt at propping up the Gorebot’s movie is getting more ridiculous by the day.

      As a proud member of his “home” state who prevented his election in 2000, I wish he would just go back to his farm in Carthage and clean out the carbon neutral hog pens.

      Posted by Some0Seppo on 2006 06 28 at 10:09 AM • permalink

 

    1. Geez Gusty, did you really spend all of that time googling for a contrary claim?
      You must be independently wealthy… that or a social program beneficiary.

      No Tex, and if you check the links you’ll see that the information is readily available to anyone who is seriously interested.

      Posted by gustov_deleft on 2006 06 28 at 10:11 AM • permalink

 

    1. 100 people who agreed with him agreed with him. That’s incredible!

      Posted by Bandit on 2006 06 28 at 10:47 AM • permalink

 

    1. #40 Some on the right is not really contributing to the debate on climate change at all. They are just saying – stop complaining and eat your popcorn.
      No, what we’re really saying is stop moaning and whining like hysterical ninnies, and get on with your life.  The level-headed among us know that if climate change is happening, there’s not a damn thing we can do about it except adapt.  I’m willing to bet it’s the “change” part that has envirolefties wetting their panties.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 06 28 at 10:52 AM • permalink

 

    1. Dammit, where’d my comment go?  Anyway, gustov, I followed your links and as the movie’s distribution widens (from blue areas out into the sane world), its ticket sales begin to come down.

      In Hollywood parlance, it don’t have legs.

      And you don’t have a leg to stand on.  Go read a real book, it doesn’t matter what on, just a book that isn’t full of fairy tales.

      Posted by ushie on 2006 06 28 at 10:53 AM • permalink

 

    1. Dammit, where’d my comment go?  Anyway, gustov, I followed your links and as the movie’s distribution widens (from blue areas out into the sane world), its ticket sales begin to come down.

      You might want to have another look.

      Posted by gustov_deleft on 2006 06 28 at 11:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. Fuck off Gusty

      Posted by jlc on 2006 06 28 at 11:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. You might want to have another look.

      What’s your point, gusty?  If you can’t make it clearly and succintly (i.e., without pointing to a long series of comments and the same data that the UPI article used, and then smiling smughly), why bother?

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 28 at 11:28 AM • permalink

 

    1. Now wait.  I think gustov_deleft is simply trying to comment in a civil fashion.  Let’s not hurt his feelings and make him leave.

      (hoping gustov stays, removing the possibiilty of being made the “designated troll” and have to wear leftwing clothes, mascara, lip gloss)

      Posted by wronwright on 2006 06 28 at 12:37 PM • permalink

 

    1. Leftwing mascara?  What the hell…?

      Posted by ushie on 2006 06 28 at 12:59 PM • permalink

 

    1. #40 harryc,

      Not a scientific evaluation of environmental claims. Just a ‘don’t worry’ post that makes weather observations but proves nil about trends in climate.

      I now see your problem, Harry.  You are going to the wrong sites for your enviornmental news if you are expecting a scientificdiscussion about anything.  Tim isn’t a scientist and this isn’t a blog about science.  We are discussing the political aspects of the question because the information available to us laymen is contradictory and there are people who want to change our entire way of life on this contradictory information.  We understandably scoff at those who demand that we ignore the contradictions and just go along no matter the consequences to man’s life on this earth.  If you are right, there isn’t much to be done by humans except what they’ve always done: invent ways to cope.  By maintaining our progress, we will still have the infrastructure to do so.  Kyoto, and such political monstrocities, make sure that we do not have the means to cope; therefore, we do not demure to them.

      And temperatures have risen.

      From the article I linked to in #31:

      The most gratifying thing about the National Academy of Science panel report last week into the science behind Michael Mann’s past temperature reconstructions – the iconic “hockey stick” isn’t what the mainstream media have been reporting – the panel’s declaration that the last 25 years of the 20th Century were the warmest in 400 years.  After all, 400 years ago was 1600, and as the panel noted that was in the midst of a 350 year period from 1500 to 1850 where “a wide variety of evidence” supports the finding of a “Little Ice Age.”

      One might expect warming at the end of an ice age, right?

      The NSA panel was set up in the first place because Mann et al were not forthcoming in providing information to other scientists for peer review.  The noise from the argument reached House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton, who had to issue letters to Mann et al, along with IPCC chairman Rajenda Pachauri, and National Science Foundation’s Arden Bement, asking whether federal access quidelines for information from taxpayer-funded research was being followed.  (For this he was vilified in the press for staging a witch-hunt.  This is why the NSA panel was convened.)  The attitude of some climate scientists was summed up by Phil Jones in a reply to climate sceptic Warwick Hughes (quoted at the beginning of the article):  “We have 25 or so years invested in the work.  Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

      Something tells me that Jones, a climatologist, doesn’t understand the purpose of a peer review.  Is this your idea of how a scientist ought to think?  The NSA didn’t think so.  Quoting again from the article:

      The panel told scientits that they should strive to provide data and “that a clear explanation of analytical methods is mandatory” and that “paleoclimate researh would benefit if individual researchers, professional societies, journal editors, and funding agencies continued to improve their efforts to ensure that … existing open access practices are followed.”

      That was prettily phrased, but an admonition to scientists to follow standard procedures isn’t pretty at all.

      Then you finish up this ungrammatical whine:

      Some on the right is not really contributing to the debate on climate change at all.

      Just what is it that you are expecting commenters on a blog to contribute to a scientific discussion?  We may discuss the fact that scientists are arguing about the facts and how they were gathered, and we may disguss the ensuing political questions.  None of that “advances” the actual scientific discussion at all.  Since I am completely unschooled in anything beyond basic science methodology, I wouldn’t have a scientific discussion of any sort with a banker, a soldier, a medical doctor, a political columnist, or an economist.  None of us are qualified.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 06 28 at 01:05 PM • permalink

 

    1. #40 harryc

      If you wish a REAL scientifically based discussion, I ask you to read the two sites below.  They will take you a few hours to read as they are the most comprehensive and best researched anti-man-made-globalwarming sites I have seen.  I am yet to to read anything that comes close in it`s research and references to these 2 sites, that gives refernce-based proof of man-made climate change.  I challenge you to show me something that dis-proves the info at these 2 sites…. (if you even bother to read them)

      http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
      http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/

      Finally, a quote from the last paragraph of this web page: http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm
      “There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind’s activities on climate.
      Many scientists believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public … as H L Mencken said “the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary” … the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.”

      Posted by Gozza on 2006 06 28 at 01:50 PM • permalink

 

    1. Let’s note that harryc hasn’t done jack to further the discussion, either, scientific or otherwise. (But he works in academia!) All his comment in #40 amounts to him whining that people here dare talking about “climate change” in non-approved ways. Rather, we should shut up and leave the discussion to our well-credentialed betters. Ah, so, so…progressive of you, harryc.

      I’m hard-pressed to even consider clueless harry a troll. He’s more of a automated boredom dispenser with semi-developed distraction capabilities.

      Posted by PW on 2006 06 28 at 03:32 PM • permalink

 

    1. …amounts to IS him whining…

      (I have no excuse, I did use preview.)

      Posted by PW on 2006 06 28 at 03:33 PM • permalink

 

    1. He’s more of a automated boredom dispenser with semi-developed distraction capabilities.

      Damn, that was beautiful.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 06 28 at 07:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. There’s something I wish some of y’all smart folk would look into. I’d try but I tend to get lost in legaleese and other forms of contractual language.

      I am wondering if such things as:
      The Kyoto Protocol
      UN Agenda 21
      and
      advocates of aggressive human depopulation policies

      tend to flow from same persons? Share common originating sources? funding sources? lobbying forces?

      also, is there a tie in with neo-paganism and “earth worship” legitization drives?

      Posted by Grimmy on 2006 06 28 at 07:37 PM • permalink

 

    1. #64 Grimmy,
      You forgot the Anti-Corporate Agenda, but I’m sure it’s all just a coincidence.

      Posted by Daniel San on 2006 06 28 at 11:15 PM • permalink

 

    1. And it was off to such a good start.

      Posted by aaron_ on 2006 06 28 at 11:39 PM • permalink

 

    1. Grimmy, you have a serious point about the depopulation fanatics making plans.  But the West is already depopulating by choice, plus Russia and Japan.
      The problem will come when, in a generation, we realise that some places -maybe Moslem lands, India and South America -are vastly bigger in numbers, but haven’t decided voluntarily to depopulate through affluence [they won’t achieve that].
      How will they be ‘persuaded’ to depopulate to suit the West’s affluent fanatics [I assume they still will be both]?

      Is this a ‘pre-war 1930s Germany scenario’ that we may face on an international stage?

      Posted by Barrie on 2006 06 29 at 01:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. Gustov_deleft, your writing style greatly resembles that of the late LeftyLatteLover.  Are you the same poster with a new handle?

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 06 29 at 02:56 AM • permalink

 

    1. #61: But he works in academia!

      Maybe he’s an academia nut.

      Posted by paco on 2006 06 29 at 12:45 PM • permalink

 

    1. #42- I wouldn’t get too excited about the warmo-skepticism credentials of the Australian government- they’ve got a huge, expensive, intrusive and useless Greenhouse Office which sticks its bureaucratic beak into ever facet of life and endevour, and is taken particularly seriously by the idiot encumbent Environment Minister and compulsive cetacean cuddler Ian Campbell, a luvvie from central casting who wouldn’t be out of place in an alpacca tea-cosy throwing marbles and bags of his own organic compost at assembled mounted police at an anti-global capital bongfest.
      A fair lump of federal cabinent are about as committed conservatives as Hilary Clinton.

      Posted by Habib on 2006 06 29 at 09:02 PM • permalink

 

    1. #70: Interesting link on Campbell. Something about that headline – “Minister Defends Wind Farms From Attack” – strikes me as irresistably funny.

      Posted by paco on 2006 06 29 at 09:52 PM • permalink

 

    1. I keep asking trolls that want to dispute climate change for scientific evidence. ie an uncontested review article in a journal.
      Why?
      1) uncontested because that’s they’re claim: that the scientific community is united.
      2) review article – not foolproof, but this stops bogus little never-heard-of-it articles that nobody bothered to argue against. also review article reviews the current state of the science, rather than just giving one set of data
      3) journal article because this is the mark of a genuine scientific contribution. therefore books, proceedings, press releases and websites don’t count.
      I haven’t got one yet.
      But I have an open mind. I’ll keep asking whenever they turn up.

      Posted by daddy dave on 2006 06 30 at 06:28 PM • permalink

 

    1. their claim” not “they’re claim”
      perview prveiw perveiw is my friend

      Posted by daddy dave on 2006 06 30 at 06:30 PM • permalink

 

    1. I wonder if anyone has noticed that the “drop” from “$70,333 per play to $12,334” is PER PLAY.  That is to say, per screening.  This is simply a reflection of the fact that AIT is playing on more theaters, and smaller theaters, as its audience expands.  If you actually look at the grosses, they have INCREASED each weekend, as shown on
      this site.

      I suppose there’s at least some methodological consistency in this: bad statistics are a feature of climate change skepticism.

      Daddy Dave, are you wanting an “uncontested review article in a journal” in support of climate change theory? If so, just a couple of questions for clarification…

      1) Any “contesting” must also be done in a peer-reviewed article in a reputable journal, right?  That is, paid hack jobs in newspaper articles by Tim Harris aren’t acceptable.

      2) If a point of contention must actually dispute the existence of global warming, and/or the anthropogenic basis of global warming.  In other words, if Dr. Jones says “Dr. Smith’s article grossly understates the threat of global warming,” then that shouldn’t be considered “contesting” for your purposes, correct?  Likewise, if the point of contention is purely methodological, but does not question the basic conclusion in support of global warming, that too would not demonstrate any disunity on that point in the scientific community, correct?

      Oh, one last question – you are clear on the difference between “consensus” and “unity,” aren’t you?

      Once we get clear on those points, I’ll see what I can find for you.

      Posted by Paul S on 2006 07 01 at 11:09 PM • permalink

 

    1. Paul S,
      Please do.
      1) yes.
      2) For my part this is a discussion in good faith. However, there is one important point of clarification: global warming skeptics don’t actually dispute “global warming” as such. Therefore, demonstrating that the earth is ‘warming up’ is just producing uncontested data.
      The dispute is that (i) humans are mostly responsible for it, and (ii) that this will cause irreversible catastrophic damage to the environment.
      Regarding (i) skeptics complain that the data supporting this claim, such as correlations between CO2 and warming, use cherry-picked time frames.
      As an example of (ii), skeptics note that environmentalists have been predicting for decades that the sea level will rise, flooding low-lying areas, yet the sea level remains remarkably static.

      Posted by daddy dave on 2006 07 02 at 10:43 AM • permalink

 

    1. Paul S, this thread is about to close for commenting. If you find you can’t post here, post on a more recent Al Gore thread, and I’ll find it.

      Posted by daddy dave on 2006 07 02 at 11:19 AM • permalink

 

    1. there is one important point of clarification: global warming skeptics don’t actually dispute “global warming” as such. Therefore, demonstrating that the earth is ‘warming up’ is just producing uncontested data.

      That’s not quite true.  To cite just one example, the widely-quoted skeptic Tim Ball claims that the earth is actually cooling.  However, I certainly can accept that you, personally, consider the evidence on that point uncontestable, and construct my search accordingly.

      The dispute is that (i) humans are mostly responsible for it, and (ii) that this will cause irreversible catastrophic damage to the environment.

      Again, a quibble: Few environmentalists seriously argue that environmental damage will be both catastropic and irreversible.  That is, most recognize the earth can redress the carbon imbalance on a geological timescale, once humans either no longer exist or manage to clean up our act.

      That said, the most likely point of study for this in the literature is the human role in current warming, so that’s what I’ll look for.  And I feel that I should point out again that the claim among those who actually read the literature (such as the IPCC and the literature survey done by the AAAS) is that there is consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific community, not “unity.”

      Since this thread is closing, I’ll either post results to a later thread, or email them to you.

      Posted by Paul S on 2006 07 02 at 01:06 PM • permalink

 

Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.