More from Gore - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

03/15/2007 04:40:35 PM · #351

Those who are interested can read what Dr. Wunsch actually wrote in response to being "misled" by Channel 4 ( without the insertion of third party bias ). The full transcript, and his letter to Channel 4, itself, can be viewed HERE ( note: pdf file )

Personally, I find the last two paragraphs of his response to be rather refreshing.

gingerbaker

Canon EOS-5D

03/20/2007 09:46:35 PM · #352

Originally posted by RonB:

"Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Dr. Allegre, a renowned geochemist, wrote 20 years ago in Cles pour la geologie.

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

From This Article in The National Post

An on-line reply about this fellow from //www.hells-handmaiden.com/?p=1551:

"Specifically, Allegre is a â��geophysicist specializing in geochemistry and the use of paleomagnetismâ�� and he â��has never published anything directly related to anthropogenic climate changeâ��.

Still, lets give him the benefit of the doubt. Fortunately, or unfortunately, we donâ��t have to stick our necks out too far. Last year Allegre published an article in Lâ��Express concerning the snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro.

Ahemâ�¦

Citing a â��Natureâ�� study (which was in fact published in Science) by Pierre Sepulchre and colleagues from my laboratory, he claimed that this modelling study demonstrated that Kilimanjaroâ��s glaciers are controlled by tectonic activity. In fact, the article describes the impact of tectonics of the East African Highlands on Indian ocean moisture transport â��- on a time scale of millions of years! This confuses glacier variability over the last ~100 years with rainfall trends extending back to the time of the early hominids (such as Lucy).

Con AllÃ¨gre, ma non troppo

Read carefully. Allegre bungled things so badly as to completely miss the point of the article he was citing, even citing the article as coming from the wrong source.

Thenâ�¦

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

Con AllÃ¨gre, ma non troppo

Allegreâ��s French collegues have spanked him for this nonsense as well.

"

gingerbaker

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

03/20/2007 09:54:22 PM · #353

Originally posted by Flash:

Gore needs to Cool it

Flash posts a link to Fox News, which reprints part of a New York Times hit piece on Gore ( in case anybody still thinks that the NYT is a liberal paper)

Turns out the article is apparantly garbage. Thorough debunking (from the Huffington Post):

Debunking the NYT's Sloppy Hit Piece on Gore (104 comments )

Yesterday, Drudge breathlessly reported a coming "hit on Gore" from The New York Times. Today that hit has come, in the form of a state-of-the-art piece of slime from Bill Broad.

This may be the worst, sloppiest, most dishonest piece of reporting I've ever seen in the NYT. It's got all the hallmarks of a vintage Gore hit piece: half-truths, outright falsehoods, unsubstantiated quotes, and a heaping dose of innuendo. As usual with these things, unless you've been following the debate carefully, you'll be left with a false impression -- in this case, that scientists are divided over the accuracy of Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth.

I find it difficult to believe that Broad doesn't know exactly what he's doing here. (See RealClimate for a discussion of one of his previous travesties.)

I could go almost sentence by sentence, but let's just run through some of the highlights. I apologize for the length, but there's really a lot of trash here to shovel through.

Here's the central thrust: "... part of [Gore's] scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore's central points are exaggerated and erroneous."

All right, so let's see some exaggerated and erroneous claims, right?

Things start promisingly, as the article names one of these critics: Don J. Easterbrook, professor of geology. Easterbrook said, "there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing [from Gore], and we have to temper that with real data." What inaccuracies? Astoundingly, the article doesn't cite a single alleged inaccuracy until 28 paragraphs later. It's this:

[Easterbrook] hotly disputed Mr. Gore's claim that "our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this" threatened change.

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

But Gore never said (as far as I know, no one has ever said) that the temperature swing in the last century is the widest temperature swing ever. Gore's point is that the global average temperature has never shifted so much so quickly -- about ten times faster than previous swings. That speed, after all, is the primary evidence of human involvement.

So we have exactly one "inaccuracy," and it's based on a thuddingly obvious misunderstanding.

Here's something else you never hear about Easterbrook in the piece: he doesn't believe human GHG emissions are causing current global warming. That's fine. More power to him. But it puts him way outside the scientific mainstream; the recent IPCC report put confidence in the culpability of human GHGs at between 90-99%. Does Easterbrook's ... idiosyncratic stance on the basic science of climate change not warrant a mention, since he is the critic most prominently featured? Apparently not.

Moving on. Many of Gore's critics, the piece says, "occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots."

Sound familiar? You just know what's coming next, right? Yup, brace yourselves for Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee:

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration.

...

"[Gore]'s a very polarizing figure in the science community," said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center.

Let's be frank here. Vranes -- Robin to Pielke Jr.'s Batman -- is a climatologist only under a strained definition of that term; he's published little peer-reviewed work and mainly blogs (like me!). The only reason anyone knows his name is that he once had a "sense" that scientists had "oversold" climate science -- a sense not shared by other climate scientists. Why is Vranes' sensation worth reporting? God knows, but google around a bit and you'll see it's made Vranes famous.

As for the next 'graph, where to begin? First, Roger Pielke Jr. is not an "environmental scientist." He's not a scientist of any kind, though he's got a track record of encouraging that misapprehension. RPJr. is a policy guy who spends most of his time blogging and getting quoted in the media. Given that he's not a scientist, why should anyone care what he thinks is going on "in the science community"? Shouldn't we hear from an actual scientist about that?

I know Gore "polarizes" the conservative political community, with whom RPJr. incessantly plays footsie, but as this trainwreck of an article illustrates, there aren't too many mainstream scientists willing to talk about how polarizing Gore is.

OK, let's take stock. So far, to establish that "part of [Gore's] scientific audience is uneasy," we have a gross misunderstanding from one scientist who doesn't believe GHGs cause global warming, and the unsubstantiated quotes of two well-known media hounds. And that's what Broad led with.

Some 12 paragraphs in, we finally hear from mainstream climate scientists. What do they say?

"He has credibility in this community," said Tim Killeen ... director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a top group studying climate change. "There's no question he's read a lot and is able to respond in a very effective way."

Kinda puts a new spin on things, huh? At least for the three people who read this far into the piece.

Then, after a few paragraphs showing that the mainstream scientific community largely supports Gore's movie, and that neither they nor he senses any "backlash," we come to ... the skeptics. Richard Lindzen. Bjorn Lomborg. Naturally, they say what they say. But didn't Broad promise earlier that criticism came "not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists"? I'm still waiting for the rank-and-file to show up.

Then comes another cheap shot: "Some of Mr. Gore's centrist detractors" -- Who? No names offered. -- "point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ... [which] portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process." But Gore, "citing no particular time frame, envisions [sea level] rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent."

Notice that all the work here is being done by the weasel phrases "citing no particular time frame" and "at least visually." Of course, as those awake during the movie know, Gore cited no time frame because he was talking about what could happen if the Greenland and/or Antarctic ice sheets pass a tipping point and melt quickly, as many scientists fear. As Gore noted -- you know, verbally -- nobody knows when or if that tipping point will be passed. But I guess he "implied" otherwise. Visually.

Another cheap shot: "So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore's portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium." Did the NAS report contradict Gore? No, it did the exact opposite. Here's a quote from the report:

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence ... Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.

At this point Broad appears to be regurgitating right-wing talking points without even, as they say, using the google.

If you can believe it, it gets worse. Next we hear that "other critics" take issue with Gore's claim that fossil fuel companies have conspired to obscure evidence of climate change, and that "virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits." Remember, in the movie Gore cited a study by Naomi Oreskes that showed that out of 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles on some aspect of climate change, exactly ... none disputed the basic consensus. But, Broad tells us:

Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain ... challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.

"Hardly a week goes by," Dr. Peiser said, "without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory," including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Oh? Devotees of this debate will recall that when Peiser tried to dispute Oreskes' study, he fell on his face, spectacularly, and eventually admitted as much. Yet he's still getting quoted in The New York Times -- without citing any of these allegedly numerous "examples of pointed disagreement."

All right. That's enough. I doubt anybody's still reading.

For those who are, let's summarize: Bill Broad took to the pages of the paper of record to establish that there is significant concern in the scientific community about the accuracy of Gore's movie. To do so, he trotted out scientific outliers, non-scientists, and hacks with discredited arguments. In at least two cases (Pielke Jr. being a scientist and the NAS report contradicting Gore) he made gross factual errors. As for the rest, it's a classic case of journalistic "false balance" -- something I thought we were done with on global warming. I guess when it comes to Al Gore, the press still thinks it can get by on smear, suggestion, and innuendo.

Broad, and The New York Times, should be embarrassed.

Message edited by author 2007-03-20 21:55:45.

dacrazyrn

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/21/2007 04:43:42 AM · #354

puts him way outside the scientific mainstream
Kind of back when the earth was flat (mainstream). I imagine similar arguments at that time also.

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

03/22/2007 08:58:43 AM · #355

30 years ago, this was the catastrophe awaiting us (as reported in TIME).

Another Ice Age?

from page 2 "Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years."

03/22/2007 11:50:19 AM · #356

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

This may be the worst, sloppiest, most dishonest piece of reporting I've ever seen in the NYT. It's got all the hallmarks of a vintage Gore hit piece: half-truths, outright falsehoods, unsubstantiated quotes, and a heaping dose of innuendo. As usual with these things, unless you've been following the debate carefully, you'll be left with a false impression -- in this case, that scientists are divided over the accuracy of Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth.

Many would argue that is just typical NYT reporting. Sorry if liberals are facing it for the first time...

;)

03/22/2007 11:53:48 AM · #357

Why is it EVERY single rebuttal seems to point to RealClimate.org

Sorry, I do not view RealClimate.org as valid. In fact, some of the most questioned and criticized individuals are the main elements of RealClimate.org, which to me comes off more as a biased entity than science.

I love how everyone points to their explanation with regards to global warming that is occurring on Mars. Their whole response essentially boils down to "it's just regional". Ironically, this is an argument they completely dismiss regarding earth's climate. Furthermore, the ice caps that are melting on Mars contain frozen CO2. Thus a release of such a harmful global warming gas should have even more global impact and repercussions than our melting glaciers of water.

03/22/2007 12:10:00 PM · #358

Originally posted by "gingerbaker":

But Gore never said (as far as I know, no one has ever said) that the temperature swing in the last century is the widest temperature swing ever. Gore's point is that the global average temperature has never shifted so much so quickly -- about ten times faster than previous swings. That speed, after all, is the primary evidence of human involvement.

Actually, it does. That's the whole point of the hockey stick graph. Such a graph states that the highest rising swing ever and by far is now.

However, there is a lot of question on the data used. In fact, some staticians put red noise data (random data that all balances out to zero so it should create a straight line) in to the model. The model still returned a hockey stick thus demonstrating serious issues with the model.

Originally posted by "gingerbaker":

the recent IPCC report put confidence in the culpability of human GHGs at between 90-99%

Referring to the IPCC report is kind of circular. Many scientists listed in the report have expressed distress that they did not support such findings. And the context being presented is mis-represented. Furthermore, much of the IPCC ties to the same studies and same people as RealClimate.

I STILL HAVE YET TO SEE A VALID RESPONSE AS TO WHY BOTH MARS AND PLUTO HAVE BEEN SHOWING SIGNS OF GLOBAL WARMING.

(BTW...please don't link to RealClimate.org's blog on the matter. It's rather invalid and inaccurate.)

The real issue is the presentation of the matter. Which has been made political and divisive. Instead of it being about science it is about politics, government grants, egos.

There is no room for disagreement. Worse, there is no room for other scientific theories for the cause to even be presented. There are some scientists who believe the 'cementification' turn of bio-mass into paved roads and buildings. Cutting down rich bio-masses (ie: rain forests) for low bio-masses (grass) are a greater factor. And in fact, could also explain higher CO2 levels and greater warmth. Plants photo-synthesize turning the sun's solar energy into chemical energy (starchs & sugars). Remove bio-mass and that solar energy is left unprocessed to merely heat the earth.

Our habitat destruction and removal may be more to blame than all of the industry. One has to remember that centuries ago cities in Europe like London were known for their sooty skies from all the fireplaces burning wood and coal. That was unfiltered, no treatment, big time CO2 release.

The truth of the matter is that there is still a great lack of understanding. The fact that Mars and Pluto are showing signs of global warming adds great credence to those who believe at least a large part is due to solar fluxuations.

ALL THIS SAID - IT DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULDN'T STOP POLLUTING AND CLEAN UP OUT ACT

But scar tactics, fear-mongering, etc. These are not the way to encourage such change. The ends do not always justify the means.

03/22/2007 12:54:09 PM · #359

Originally posted by theSaj:

I STILL HAVE YET TO SEE A VALID RESPONSE AS TO WHY BOTH MARS AND PLUTO HAVE BEEN SHOWING SIGNS OF GLOBAL WARMING.

From National Geographic

"The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun."

03/22/2007 12:56:55 PM · #360

Originally posted by theSaj:

Sorry, I do not view RealClimate.org as valid.

Just like we don't view Fox News as valid or even real news.

Originally posted by theSaj:

In fact, some of the most questioned and criticized individuals are the main elements of RealClimate.org, which to me comes off more as a biased entity than science.

names and links please

03/22/2007 07:49:14 PM · #361

"The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun."

Then such would apply to the earth as well. Furthermore, I don't find such an answer as valid. A potential answer but it seems to disagree with the expected results.

For example, Pluto's orbit was supposed to bringing to a cooler state. However, it was noted that the atmosphere was not condensing as expected. Which would indicate that it was experiencing a warmer state than expected. Said orbit tilt and alterations were supposed to bring about a cooler state not a warmer state. It went against expectations.

And one might dismiss expectations. But that is truly ALL we have to go on. All of climate theory is based on expectations.

Originally posted by "poonaka":

Just like we don't view Fox News as valid or even real news.

I don't even have television....so you're point.

Originally posted by "poonaka":

From National Geographic

This exemplifies what I find stupid about global warming alarmists.

Okay, explanation for Mars warming "planets wobble". But not earth. Look, you have to use the same models and same explanations. If the most likely reason for Mars to be warming is because it is wobbling. Than it should also be the reason for the earth's warmth.

"Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now."

Koincidence is not a kosher word in my dictionary.

Not to mention the flurry of articles regarding strange behavior of the sun's surface, increase of sunspots, etc. Which have potential parallels to global warming.

Once again, not a single global warming alarmist could explain how CO2 is such a significant effect to earth. But the melting of Martian polar ice caps (one of which is made up mainly of CO2) could be less dramatic.

I mean, let's think of it this way. Imagine all those glaciers that are melting in the artic that people are up in arms about were made of solid CO2. How much would CO2 would be getting released into the air. Way more than we probably manufacture in a century. The effect, if CO2 is as profound an issue as it is made out to be, would be enormous were our poles made of CO2.

So there seems to be a constant dismissal and lame explanations. Essentially, global warming theorists are unwilling to apply the same rules and models to all celestrial bodies as they want to apply to earth. They deride alternative explanations for earth's global warming but then provide those same explanations for other celestrial bodies.

And I am supposed to respect such? Sorry, that is atrocious science!

03/22/2007 07:51:23 PM · #362

Originally posted by poonaka:

Originally posted by theSaj:
Sorry, I do not view RealClimate.org as valid.

Just like we don't view Fox News as valid or even real news.

Originally posted by theSaj:
In fact, some of the most questioned and criticized individuals are the main elements of RealClimate.org, which to me comes off more as a biased entity than science.

names and links please

Just look at how many studies Mann was involved in alone. Do a google search on the hockey stick graph. You should find a fair amount of controversy.

Message edited by author 2007-03-22 19:52:11.

jonnienye

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/23/2007 03:45:52 AM · #363

the sky is falling......

03/23/2007 08:26:43 AM · #364

Originally posted by theSaj:

Then such would apply to the earth as well. Furthermore, I don't find such an answer as valid. A potential answer but it seems to disagree with the expected results.

From the article:

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

03/23/2007 08:29:33 AM · #365

Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "poonaka":
Just like we don't view Fox News as valid or even real news.

I don't even have television....so you're point.

They have a website and the nay sayers in this thread have been quoting it.

manifoldunity

03/23/2007 07:19:12 PM · #366

the car is on fire, and there's no one at the wheel....

manifoldunity

03/23/2007 07:24:57 PM · #367

"Most people are on the world, not in it; have no conscious sympathy or relationship to anything about them, undiffused, separate, and rigidly alone like marbles of polished stone, touching but separate."

Flash

Nikon D700

03/27/2007 11:33:08 AM · #368

Polar Ice Caps

04/10/2007 03:31:42 PM · #369

From the latest Science-mailer ( email alert from Science Magazine )
( emphasis mine ):

"The formation of cold, dense water in the North Atlantic Ocean today helps drive meridional overturning circulation, in which warm water flows north over cold water flowing south, but conditions may have differed during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) 21,000 years ago. Lynch-Stieglitz et al. (p. 66) review our understanding of this problem. The pace of deep Atlantic circulation during the LGM was nearly as vigorous as it is now, but patterns of sea surface temperatures and the distribution of water masses were different, indicating that different mechanisms drove circulation then. Furthermore, during the last interglacial, around 125,000 years ago, land and sea surface temperatures at high latitudes were higher than they are today, and sea level was 4 to 6 meters higher. Did deep ocean conditions contribute to melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets? Duplessy et al. (p. 89) analyzed cores from the Atlantic and Southern oceans and show that North Atlantic Deep Water was warmer during the last interglacial than it is today. Using two models, they infer that extra heat would have been transferred to Circumpolar Deep Water in the Southern Hemisphere, which would have melted more of the Antarctic Ice Sheet."

And not an SUV or oil-fired power plant in sight.

Message edited by author 2007-04-10 15:32:46.

NVPhoto

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/10/2007 03:46:01 PM · #370

By disproving the global warming theory are you advocating that we do nothing to be concious of our environment. Because some scientists say it has no effect do we keep consuming oil and manufacturing bigger and bigger vehicles?

Doesn't it just make sense to try and conserve a little or use cleaner fuels or ween ourselves off oil? Why would it be so bad to take what Gore said w/ a grain of salt and try to do your part to conserve our environment. We are so reliant on the environment yet we destroy the hell out of it...

There is no harm in trying to do your part.

04/10/2007 04:41:21 PM · #371

Originally posted by Jmnuggy:

1) Am I advocating that we do nothing? Absolutely not. If you look back in this thread to 1/14/2007, you will find that I stated:

Originally posted by RonB:

I am, and have consistently been, all in favor of "changing our ways" to reduce our impact on the environment. Contrary to what I perceive is popular belief ( at least among those who debate me in this thread ) I am a staunch advocate of conservation. My approach to conservation is best summed up by the old maxim, "Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints".

2) Doesn't it just make sense to try and conserve a little?
Absolutely, and better to conserve more than just a little.

3) Why would it be so bad to take what Gore said w/ a grain of salt and try to do your part to conserve our environment.
It wouldn't be bad at all.
But there are far too many who do NOT take what Gore said w/ a grain of salt - they take it as though what he says is the absolute truth. I'm just trying to show that his analyses may be based on SOME ( selective ) scientific truths, but that there are equally compelling views that are also based on scientific truths - and more and more, the scientific evidence for competing views are being "discovered" by the same sources that originally supported Gore's position. As more and more competing "facts" become known, many former supporters are now admitting that Gore may have been a bit too dire in his predictions. Some are even changing their minds altogether.
Not to say that we shouldn't do our best to be conservative ( pun intended ).

NVPhoto

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/10/2007 07:26:33 PM · #372

the entire disproving global warming thing is very similar to the views of smoking and health back in the say 40's and 50's. People said they didn't know it was bad. Really? The coughing and hacking and dying and no one thought it could be the burning plant matter that they were inhaling on a daily basis. To me its similar because deep down people knew it was bad but that meant a change of life style. Ignorance is bliss. If people admit that global warming is occuring than that would mean a change in lifestyle that people are unwilling to make. Less gas guzzlers, less oil, less 35000sqft homes, less les less.

If people disprove it than we aren't ruining the environment, right?

Common sense says that we are hurting the environment even if there was no shred of evidence. It makes sense that all our vehicles and industry contribute negatively to the environment. I think deep down everyone really knows that we need to make changes otherwise someday this beautiful environment is going to be gone and so are we. Problem is that its so far in the future and everyone on earth right now will be dead by the time its truly noticeable so they tend not to care.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/10/2007 07:37:44 PM · #373

Originally posted by Jmnuggy:

Good post.

I would add that it is of course far more than common sense that suggests that we are causing climate change. RonB talks of more and more scientists bucking the trend - but forgets that they are remarkable largely for their scarcity.

04/10/2007 10:24:31 PM · #374

Originally posted by Matthew:

I would add that it is of course far more than common sense that suggests that we are causing climate change. RonB talks of more and more scientists bucking the trend - but forgets that they are remarkable largely for their scarcity.

It is interesting to note that some who hold that the opinions of the minority who do NOT believe that global warming has a significant anthropogenic factor should be dismissed in favor of the "consensus" merely because it IS a "consensus", but that the "consensus" that believed that Saddam Hussein harbored Weapons of Mass Destruction should conversely have been dismissed in favor of the minority who believed otherwise, regardless of the fact that there was a "consensus".

It seems that, no matter how you slice it, no one supports the notion that the "consensus" is ALWAYS right. But, of course, every one believes that the "consensus" IS right when it agrees with their own point of view.

NVPhoto