What could possibly make more sense than Al Gore making a movie about hot air?

Regardless of Gore being right or wrong, even if we are not making the planet warmer, having clean water and clean air can only make life here better. Shouldn’t we work to leave this place better than we found it?

Dear Matt:
What's this "Lots of them"?
Pretty shabby research, Matt. You quote a bogus newspaper in CANADA called the 'Free Press' -- which sounds like a Communist rag -- quoting a 'scientist' in Australia...

Good Christ man, if you're going to toss out a blistering challenge from a 'scientist' how about next time try to locate a good patriotic American 'scientist'.

You said 'lots of them'. Next time, write a credible piece and quote 'lots' instead of just one out-of-town hack that had to be dredged up out in the boons.
Thank you and have a swell day.
Your friend,
Barney

"Regardless of Gore being right or wrong, even if we are not making the planet warmer, having clean water and clean air can only make life here better. Shouldn’t we work to leave this place better than we found it?"

The point is Al Gore and your ilk resort to lying, distorting, misleading and demagoguing the issue for political expediency. Who isn't for clean air and water? Are we not breathing the same air and drinking the same water? Please come off your high horses and debate the most appropiate means to the same end.

QA, we ARE working to achieve things like cleaner water and cleaner air---at least in this country. Many countries in Europe are also concerned about these topics. But poor nations simply don't have the resources to worry about them.

Ever talk to anyone who's ever been to China? The first thing they mention is the foul, black, air, from burning so much coal. Now that China is making some economic strides, they are working on this problem, but when people are cold and starving, the last thing they are going to worry about is how much smoke they are generating to get warm and fed.

Automobile emissions here are plummeting, and will continue to drop, especially with new advances such as Ford's new diesel engines. The growing use of biodiesel is a quiet revolution. Cruise ships, for example, are switching to biodiesel because it creates fewer emissions and also does not cause the problems in the oceans if there is a fuel spill that we have seen from petro-diesel.

We are making good progress. But we have to be realistic.

One area that Libs get absolutely goofy about is that of global warming. Yes, some places in the world are getting hotter. In my part of the world, the average temperatures have been dropping for aeveral years, but that doesn't mean other places aren't getting warmer. It does, however, take a chip out of the term "Global" to describe the warming trend.

The thing is, responsible scientists acknowlege that nearly all of the warming is due to solar activity. A group of Japanese climatologists recently issued a warning of a mini Ice Age they expect to develop in a few years, as the current solar activity starts to fade.

So why aren't responsible people talking calmly and rationally about the impacts of too warm vs. too cold, the savings in energy and the increase in agriculture when things warm up vs. the increased need for energy sources and the decraased food supply when it gets colder?

And we have people getting sucked into totally false beliefs. Here is one: For decades, the government had a standard for the maximum amount of arsenic allowed in drinking water. No one really knew how much was safe and how much wasn't, but somehow someone came up with an arbitrary figure, because in a few places in the Unites States arsenic in the water was a problem. I admit I don't remember the standard set---it may have been 10 ppm (parts per million). Water treatment plants across the country were built to filter to that standard, because they had to comply with it, even if they had no arsenic in their water at all. And we were all happy. People weren't dying of arsenic in the water, there were standards that seemed to be OK, and all was well. No one ever raised a question or concern about those standards. For 8 years, minus a day or so, the entire Clinton adminstraition, EPA, scientists, etc. were happy with the standard.

Fast-forward to 2000, with George W. Bush newly elected to the Presidency. This is when the arsenic bomb was devised. Right before leaving office, Clinton changed the standard to 8 ppm, as a little farewell gift to his successor. Why? Well, look at the result of that bomb.

The new president had to make one of two choices: He could let the new standard stand, thereby not calling down the wrath of the "environmentalists" on his head, take the easy way out, and at the same time allow the new rule to financially stress or even bankrupt small water treatment plants around the country, as they had to revamp their systems to meet the new standards----for absolutely no scientific reason----
Or he could do the right, rational, and courageous thing, and scuttle Clinton's new ruling.

He chose the second path. He knew that the new ruling was a political time bomb, and had nothing to do with "making the water cleaner" or "saving the children" or any such thing.

But every year I get serious, intent, nearly frantic, Liberals on my doorstep, BEGGING me to sign petitions to please, PLEASE, stop Bush from POISONING THE WATER!!!!!!!!!!!

It is too easy to get blindsided by gamesmanship like this, too easy to get sucked into a vague belief that, somehow, the "NEOCONS" are "destroying the earth". Ain't so.

Gore's movie is, I fear, just another calculated effort to get those frantic intense Libs back out there begging people to JUST DO SOMETHING !!!!!!!---and for the same calculated reason he and Bill put together the arsenic bomb. For political gain.

Isn't it just GREAT this comes from a Canadian newspaper and Canadian scientists are taking aim at this.

I love it!!!

Question All

Yes, we should. And guess what, under this administration water is at it's highest clean levels according to EPA numbers. Air quality the same.

Just because people are conservative doesn't make then anti-enviornment...in fact, quite the contrary. "Conserve" is part of our very name.

We recycle like the rest of you, we like green spaces like the rest of you. We just don't see how forcing caribou to move 2 miles to the west is a big deal.

I'll remind those on the left that the EPA was started by a Republican....Richard Nixon.

I agree that global warming is something that is happening, but cannot be controlled. We can, however, curtail water and air pollution. It seems that big business is getting into the big business of environmental processing, so trash isn't too much a concern now.

Perhaps when conservatives realized that they couldn't eat the fish they caught anymore some light bulb went off.

However, we need to educate the trash dumpers and

You cannot point to a single peer-reviewed article in the scientific literature that casts doubt on global warming. On the contrary: the thousands of articles in scientific journals in the last decade all affirm the reality of global warming.

You can, however, find the occasional kook who is virtually ignored by the scientific community, and who is trying to score some publicity (in leiu of any actual recognized talent for science) by being a global warming denier. You can also find lots of articles in the MSM that are skeptical of climate change. But within the scientific community there is a level on unanimity that is rarely seen: global warming is happening, and is most likely caused by increased levels of CO2.

There is some debate within the scientific community over what effects this warming will have on the planet and its ability to support life, yes. There is also some debate over the rate of the increase in warming. But over the warming itself and its source, there is practically no debate.

Global warming denial has about as much credibility as holocaust denial.

This isn't a left/right, conservative/liberal kind of an issue. It's an issue of science, and possibly an issue of survival. And be it evolution, or climate change, this administration has shown itself to be openly hostile to science. This is not a conservative position. It is, however, a very dumb position.

Almiranta -

"The thing is, responsible scientists acknowlege that nearly all of the warming is due to solar activity."

Show me one peer-reviewed article in a journal of science that says that "nearly all the warming is due to solar activity." (and no, "Popular Mechanics" doesn't count as an academic journal).

The funny thing, Almiranta, is that your statement is correct in the strictest sense - that is, practically ALL warming of the earth is due to solar activity! Other than a small contribution to surface warmth made by geothermal sources, what else warms the earth but the sun! However, the increase in surface temperatures on earth over the last few decades is almost certainly due to increased trapping of that solar heat in our atmosphere by carbon emissions.

Aarontime,
Why are you telling these right-wingers about the dangers of 'global warming'? These guys don't believe in science! They believe in "intelliegent design".
LOL.................................

Echoing Barney...

if global warming denial is a position held by lots of experts - "lots of them" - then why do you have to go all the way to Australia to find an example of one of these kooks? (er, I mean, "experts"). Surely, there are lots of scientists here in the USA. Last I checked, the USA has won the vast lion's share of Nobel prizes in the sciences...

But within the scientific community there is a level on unanimity that is rarely seen: global warming is happening, and is most likely caused by increased levels of CO2.

So do tell, what exactly is causing the observed global warming on the 4th planet? Is it "most likely caused by increased levels of CO2" as well?

Global warming denial has about as much credibility as holocaust denial.

So is it: a) that you didn't read the article; or b) you read it, but couldn't comprehend it; or is it c) you read it, you understood it and are intentionally misrepresenting what it said?

Just FTR, here is a quote from the article:

"We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest."

See, no one in the article is "denying" the warming, they simply don't have the level of consensus over its causes that you imply, and they certainly are not holocaust....er....global warming deniers.

Interesting that you link the holocaust and global warming. Most enviro wackos claim that global warming is a pending holocaust. (For reference see Algore's movie.)

You said 'lots of them'. Next time, write a credible piece and quote 'lots' instead of just one out-of-town hack that had to be dredged up out in the boons

Methinks you should actually at least click the link and scan the article before commenting on it. It might help preventing you from looking quite so fooloish, but I can't promise anything.

Mark, thanks again for the entertainment! You present science to these parrots and they talk the Kos line. Present BS and they call it science! Present a non indictable Karl Rove and they declare a coverup by the Attorney General that excused himself from the case. No crime charges yet We still have the criminals to go,, V Plame, Joe Wilson and the NYT! That will be awesome entertainment just before elections.

These parrots carry on 6 months before the elections with absolute nonsense, we present the facts and indictments just before elections! Rove vs. Dean, TKO 1sr round! [Dean cuts and runs before the opening bell]. Reid at ringside with bribery tickets. He cuts and runs too!

The Global Warming Consensus -

As I stated earlier, the overwhelming majority consensus in the scientific community is that climate change is real. The prestigious academic jounal Science analyzed "928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords 'climate change'"

The result? All of the 928 peer-reviewed articles agreed with the consensus position. The "debate" over global warming is happening in the corporate media. But it isn't happening in the scientific community.

Personally, on this issue of climate change I'd rather believe the scientific consensus than the yakking heads on Fox "News" (or on B4B).

To summarize the findings of this study:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

Aarontime

I can point to many scientific reviews that question what is causing Global Warming.

Please, you don't want to be embarrassed.

Your claim about peer reviewed studies on Global Warming in general is somewhat a joke. There has yet to be a true dialoge on this subject as was so eloquently stated the other day in the Denver Post by professors at Colorado State and Univ. of Colorado.

Fact is, to make a statement there are no peer studies rejecting global warming ignores the fact that there hasn't been peer consensus on the issue either.

Last week's article

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

Teenage, whatever makes you feel better about yourself go ahead and believe it. But I wouldn't base my self-esteem on a false belief. LOL

Aarontime, what's wrong with Australia? Are you a snob, an elitist? Would you feel better if the expert was an American? Would you be O.K. if they where from say, Great Britain? Come on Aarontime lower that snobby nose of yours, you may get a nose bleed or run into something! I am just encouraging you to ease up a bit, America doesn’t have the market cornered so to speak.

One question-

I'll bite... I'll buy your premise that our CO2 emmissions are not causing global warming.

Earth is a giant eco-system, with many elements that are in balance and achieve the optimum conditions for life.

Let's assume that nature pretty much does this on its own, through a combination of geological phenomina, plants, animal respiration, etc.

We are gasifying tons and tons of Carbon Dioxide that wouldn't be gassed under natural conditions through the burning of fossil fuels, etc.

Can that be good for the environment?

Who is DENYING Global Warming?

Most people I know are not and most scientists are not.

The question is....WHAT IS CAUSING IT?

Let's not forget, just two months ago scientists also said Mars is now warmer than it was just a few years ago...is that being caused by human beings and SUVs also?

More logically, it's caused by the SUN. The sun goes through cycles as well with solar flares and "spasms" as some scientists call them where it is hotter or cooler at different times.

Is man partly to blame, yeah I suppose they probably are...hell we have 6 billion people now and 40 years about had 2 billion every minute of every day just in staying alive. That's a lot of farting and exhaling of CO2. Should we exterminate people as a solution?

So what is "causing" the warming (ever ever ever so slightly), why is it happening, is it part of a normal process that has gone on for billions of years, etc, etc. That, is the question and THAT is not universally accepted answers as article after article after article has shown.

If you guys on the left want to be stupid about this and say conservatives deny global warming, well be our guests. I don't think that's the case. We are simply QUESTIONING the WHO, WHERE, WHY, HOW it is happening and to what extent this recent "warming" is significant.

Warriornation -

"Fact is, to make a statement there are no peer studies rejecting global warming ignores the fact that there hasn't been peer consensus on the issue either."

Wrong. There is a scienfic consensus on this, no matter how hard you wing-nuts try to spin it. To quote the extensive survey done by the journal Science on the scientific literature on climate change:

Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case....

...The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)...In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"...

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise"...

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling...

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect...

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."

Show me one peer-reviewed article in a journal of science that says that "nearly all the warming is due to solar activity." (and no, "Popular Mechanics" doesn't count as an academic journal).

LOL so an echo chamber is your standard for reliability?

Exactly what validity is there in having peers who are already convinced of your outcomes, review your research?

The funny thing, Almiranta, is that your statement is correct in the strictest sense - that is, practically ALL warming of the earth is due to solar activity! Other than a small contribution to surface warmth made by geothermal sources, what else warms the earth but the sun! However, the increase in surface temperatures on earth over the last few decades is almost certainly due to increased trapping of that solar heat in our atmosphere by carbon emissions.

And your ironclad proof of your conclusion is where? I guess you didn't really read the article, because there is NO consensus on the causes of global warming. In fact, the article points out that many of those who have ironclad conclusions are relying on studies of local environments and extrapolating the results of those studies to the global environment.

Show me one peer-reviewed article in a journal of science that says that "nearly all the warming is due to solar activity." (and no, "Popular Mechanics" doesn't count as an academic journal).

LOL so an echo chamber is your standard for reliability?

Exactly what validity is there in having peers who are already convinced of your outcomes, review your research?

The funny thing, Almiranta, is that your statement is correct in the strictest sense - that is, practically ALL warming of the earth is due to solar activity! Other than a small contribution to surface warmth made by geothermal sources, what else warms the earth but the sun! However, the increase in surface temperatures on earth over the last few decades is almost certainly due to increased trapping of that solar heat in our atmosphere by carbon emissions.

And your ironclad proof of your conclusion is where? I guess you didn't really read the article, because there is NO consensus on the causes of global warming. In fact, the article points out that many of those who have ironclad conclusions are relying on studies of local environments and extrapolating the results of those studies to the global environment.

Warriornation-

You didn't answer my question.

Warriornation-

You didn't answer my question.

Warriornation -

"So what is "causing" the warming (ever ever ever so slightly), why is it happening, is it part of a normal process that has gone on for billions of years, etc, etc. That, is the question and THAT is not universally accepted answers as article after article after article has shown."

Nope. See my previous post. The scientific community is very clear that the warming is "anthropogenic" - that is, of human origin. The consensus on this overwhelming. You can try to stir up some kind of manufactured "debate" on the causes of global warming by quoting a few scattered fringe scientists. By they do not represent the majority consensus.

As I stated earlier, the overwhelming majority consensus in the scientific community is that climate change is real. The prestigious academic jounal Science analyzed "928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords 'climate change'"

The result? All of the 928 peer-reviewed articles agreed with the consensus position. The "debate" over global warming is happening in the corporate media. But it isn't happening in the scientific community.

Carefully re-read what you, yourself wrote. You are assuming the consensus over global warming extends to a consenus over its cause. It does not.

Either you can't grasp that, or you are intentionally mis-representing the "facts" to suit your opinion.

Each day we should continue to strive to find better ways to do everything in our lives to lessen the negative effects on the plante.

Having said that if I'm not mistaken the earth has gone through 6 major ice ages before man ever walked on it. Thus there were at least 6 major warming spells... all before man walked the planet. The earth is in a constant state of flux and for those old should remember in the 70s scientists were stating we were on a cooling trend and we must act.

Now for the elitist in the crowd who feels an American scientist must be heard to help validate the counter argument to doomsday global warming group.

Will this man do?

M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

Read on:http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

*******

Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
********

you decide

TLDietrich -

"Carefully re-read what you, yourself wrote. You are assuming the consensus over global warming extends to a consenus over its cause. It does not."

Uh, you're wrong again - carefully re-read the survey I posted of the scientific literature on climate change. The consensus position is that the cause of global warming is human activity.

Why does this blog obsess on Gore? Isn't this a "pump up Bush" blog? Gore isn't running for anything and has repeatedly stated so, much to the chagrin of millions of Democrats.

Gore championed the internet (no. not invented, as Wired Magazine later retracted), now he's championing a cause he believes in again. Big deal. At least he's not sitting around criticizing other people for doing something they believe in.

So you disagree with Gore? Drive a Hummer. Hell, let the engine run in the garage if you want.

What is it about Gore that freaks conservatives out? He's not on the ballot. He can't write pork barrel into war appropriations bills. He can't pull the troops out of Iraq. He can't DO SQUAT WITH YOUT TAXPAYER MONEY. He can only call it like he sees it.

You disagree? Make a movie with your proofs and go make a ton of box office gold yourself.

Each day we should continue to strive to find better ways to do everything in our lives to lessen the negative effects on the plante.

Having said that if I'm not mistaken the earth has gone through 6 major ice ages before man ever walked on it. Thus there were at least 6 major warming spells... all before man walked the planet. The earth is in a constant state of flux and for those old should remember in the 70s scientists were stating we were on a cooling trend and we must act.

Now for the elitist in the crowd who feels an American scientist must be heard to help validate the counter argument to doomsday global warming group.

Will this man do?

M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

Read on:http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

*******

Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
********

you decide

theblksheepwasright -

I find it interesting that Dr Sloan cries that "dissenting scientists are silenced" on the one hand, but that he himself is a lead author of the IPCC's report on climate change! (so much for being silenced)

There is a consensus position, and that is that global warming is anthropogenic. The fact that Dr Sloan cites "dissenting" voices clearly implies that there is a majority position that humans cause global warming, and that he is outside of that majority. If he disagrees, fine - but realize that that disagreement puts him with a tiny minority on the other side of the fence from the vast majority of climate scientists.

Note that there are a few sceintists who claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS! In fact, one prominent virologist got a lengthy interview on 60 Minutes years ago exposing this position of no link between the HIV virus and AIDS. A few years later, in the face of crushing evidence, he finally came around to the majority position. But his contrarian point of view far outside of the mainstream of scientific verdict gained him a moment in the spotlight - which I suspect, was his desire all along.

The existence of a few dissenters does not negate the fact that there is a clear majority position among that scientific community that HIV causes AIDS. Likewise, a few dissenters on climate change are just that: an extreme minority who by definition do not represent the majority view of climate experts.

theblksheepwasright -

I find it interesting that Dr Sloan cries that "dissenting scientists are silenced" on the one hand, but that he himself is a lead author of the IPCC's report on climate change! (so much for being silenced)

There is a consensus position, and that is that global warming is anthropogenic. The fact that Dr Sloan cites "dissenting" voices clearly implies that there is a majority position that humans cause global warming, and that he is outside of that majority. If he disagrees, fine - but realize that that disagreement puts him with a tiny minority on the other side of the fence from the vast majority of climate scientists.

Note that there are a few sceintists who claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS! In fact, one prominent virologist got a lengthy interview on 60 Minutes years ago exposing this position of no link between the HIV virus and AIDS. A few years later, in the face of crushing evidence, he finally came around to the majority position. But his contrarian point of view far outside of the mainstream of scientific verdict gained him a moment in the spotlight - which I suspect, was his desire all along.

The existence of a few dissenters does not negate the fact that there is a clear majority position among that scientific community that HIV causes AIDS. Likewise, a few dissenters on climate change are just that: an extreme minority who by definition do not represent the majority view of climate experts.

Uhm no Congressive...Gore said himself on Wolf Blitzer that he CREATED the internet. Would you like the actual audio and video link?

Has nothing to do with WIRED Magazine...he said it himself and has been digitally captured for all to see and read.

As for why Gore himself, he was the VP of this country for 8 years and ran un-successfully in 2000 for the Presidency. He is possibly a candidate again in 2008...so yes, that might make him somewhat germane.

Speaking of climate scientists being silenced...

Aarontime....first you said I couldn't name ONE SINGLE peer study on global warming causing.

I have and I can. Now you're saying it's consenus.

Which is it?

Why hasn't the world had a true debate on the CAUSES of it?

Why is Mars warming? Why is it that our temperature increases over the last 100 years also, amazingly, correspond to solar events as well?

Lastly, why should we believe your scientists...the same ones 35 years ago that said an Ice Age was coming in a few decades?

The scientific community is very clear that the warming is "anthropogenic" - that is, of human origin. The consensus on this overwhelming. You can try to stir up some kind of manufactured "debate" on the causes of global warming by quoting a few scattered fringe scientists. By they do not represent the majority consensus.

And yet you won't address the issue of global warming on Mars....where there is NO greenhouse gases and there are no humans.

Also, it bears some consideration that the observed changes in the Martian environment are extremely recent. Thus, the "consensus" hasn't had time to adjust its opinion. In fact, let me point something.....your "proof" of consensus is a review of journal articles from 1993 to 2003. Which means that the evidence observed on Mars could not be considered before your "consensus" was formulated.

(Sidebar: A review of journal articles.....I mean seriously....a review of journal articles is your "proof" of "consensus"?? LMAO!!! See my comment above about the echo chamber. Then see the comments in the article blksheep posted...)

IOW, you ought to be aware that the "consensus" was once that the earth was flat. Only a few kooks dared to hold a different opinion. Not to mention that the "consensus" a mere 30 years ago was that the earth was cooling and we were heading for an ice age.

Before dismissing those two tired cliches out of hand, consider the larger point.....the "consensus" is often wrong. Completely and totally wrong. And it often changes 180^ when new data is observed.

Frawg...my second attempt to answer. I had originally done so and this server ate it.

Several years ago ABC and John Stossel did a 30 minute show on CO2 and it's effects. The scientists they interviewed actually argued that CO2 was GOOD for the environment because it increased crop yields and plants/vegetation reacted positively to the increased CO2.

They did a study in Arizona to prove the theory where they built air tight hot houses to grow plants, vegetables, etc in an environment with MORE CO2 than normal and another with LESS CO2 than normal.

Their findings were that the MORE CO2 plants, trees, etc grew to greater densities, larger vegetables, healthier than your every day plant with "normal" CO2.

The plants in the hot house with LESS CO2 were smaller than "normal" plants, less crop yields, less density, less healthy.

Now, does this mean CO2 is better for the environment...I don't know. But it was one study and a rather interesting one.

Look, I'd love to be driving around a powerful car / truck that doesn't run on gas for many reasons. Cut down on polution, stick it to the nations we rely on those fossil fuels, etc.

At the same time, running around like chicken little like so many on the left, including the former VP of this nation is both silly and unwarranted.

Warriornation -

"Aarontime....first you said I couldn't name ONE SINGLE peer study on global warming causing.

I have and I can. Now you're saying it's consenus."

Where is your "peer study"? This is where the public is confused. You mistake debates in the media with debates in the scientific literature. You posted a link to an article in the Denver Post! That is not a peer-reviewed study in a scientific journal. Show me one study that denies the anthropogenic cause of global warming published in the last 5 years.

Aarontime....first you said I couldn't name ONE SINGLE peer study on global warming causing.

I have and I can. Now you're saying it's consenus.

Which is it?

Why hasn't the world had a true debate on the CAUSES of it?

Why is Mars warming? Why is it that our temperature increases over the last 100 years also, amazingly, correspond to solar events as well?

Lastly, why should we believe your scientists...the same ones 35 years ago that said an Ice Age was coming in a few decades?

The consensus opinion is that Aarontime will avoid these questions and begin discussing HIV/AIDS....oh wait he already did that. He'll then discuss the consenus opinion on the effectiveness of the slider over the curveball.

Ahhhh he proved the consenus opinion correct even before it could be reported!

TLDietrich -

Sidebar: A review of journal articles.....I mean seriously....a review of journal articles is your "proof" of "consensus"?? LMAO!!!

And by what standard would you propose that we judge a consesus in the scientific community? A review of journal articles is a perfectly valid method for gauging what the majority of scientists think about a given subject. What would you propose - a poll??

Warriornation, the Stossel report is precisely the type of science that is criticized in the article Mark cited. Yet these bozos can't grasp what they read (if they even bother to read) and continue to argue a point that isn't even made in the article.

And by what standard would you propose that we judge a consesus in the scientific community? A review of journal articles is a perfectly valid method for gauging what the majority of scientists think about a given subject. What would you propose - a poll??

Simply scrolling up a bit brings me to this:

"And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift."

You do understand what an echo chamber is, correct?

President Bush made a campaign pledge to spend $4.9 billion to address national parks maintenance backlog. But only a very small amount has been put to help the cause. Park buildings and roads continue to crumble. The parks budget has been cut by $100.5 million for the 2007 budget.

So the Bush assault on the environment manifests itself in many ways. Failure to act on global warming and air pollution is only one way. Allowing our national parks to deteriorate is another.

Aarontime...your mind is made up on this issue, mine and many others have not.

When you explain Mars to me, when you explain how we came out of THREE ICE AGES before man walked on earth and drove SUVS to warm it up, when you explain why 20 years ago was cooler than the norm and 50 years ago was hotter than the norm, when you explain how 180 years of weather data is somehow significant for a planet that is billions of years old....well then I might be able to jump on board.

But right now, yeah I think it's a little bit warmer and I suspect in a few years it will be a little bit cooler. And I suspect no one will really know who is causing what and that scientists opinions on this will change as the wind blows.

TLDietrich -

You state, "...Aarontime will avoid these questions and begin discussing HIV/AIDS...

I think you very well understand (or maybe I am giving you too much credit) that my point was that you can always cite a few scientists who hold onto an absurd minority position about anything - be it the cause of climate change, or the cause of AIDS.

So you want answers to warriors questions? Fine:

Why hasn't the world had a true debate on the CAUSES of it? The world did. The verdict is in: global warming is most likely caused by humans.

Why is Mars warming? Why is it that our temperature increases over the last 100 years also, amazingly, correspond to solar events as well? The climate data we have on Mars is extremely sketchy (it's far away!), and can not be compared to the scrutiny we've been able to put the earth under. We've haven't been taking measurements there for very long at all. In addition, the Martian atmosphere is extremely thin, and thus is easily affected by much smaller changes in CO2 content, such as relases of carbon gases from inside the planet.

"Lastly, why should we believe your scientists...the same ones 35 years ago that said an Ice Age was coming in a few decades?" I am not familiar with any scientists alive who both claimed an Ice Age 35 years ago and who today claim global warming. Maybe you should post a link to that.

You'll have to be satisfied with that ladies - goodnight.

Yes, I was at Yosemite a few weeks ago and I saw a bench and building crumble right before my eyes.

It was incredible.

Good Lord.

Guess what, things change. Bill Clinton promised the NIGHT HE WON in 1992 to have the "MOST ETHICAL ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY"

Ooops. Things change.

Warrior -

"When you explain Mars to me, when you explain how we came out of THREE ICE AGES before man walked on earth and drove SUVS to warm it up, when you explain why 20 years ago was cooler than the norm and 50 years ago was hotter than the norm, when you explain how 180 years of weather data is somehow significant for a planet that is billions of years old....well then I might be able to jump on board."

Maybe you should see Al Gore's film. All your questions are answered there - if you have the balls to see it.

In fact, some of the VERY SAME scientists that claimed an Ice Age 35 years ago (Life and Time magazine had it on their covers) today say Global Warming is coming.

I believe there is a list of those scientists and if I find the link I will provide.

As for Mars...guess what, we've only been taking measurements here on earth for less than 200 years too....on a planet billions of years old. So were are to make policy decisions based on data that only accounts for .000000000000001% of the life of the planet.

How stupid is that.

The verdict is NOT IN that humans cause this. In your OPINION and in many other goatherders that is the opinion. You MAY be right. You MAY be wrong.

Based on the opinions of scientists that HAVE seen the movie, I'm moved not to give Al Gore and this movie one red cent.

If these credible scientists are saying it's a joke, why on earth am I going to listen to a blowhard like Gore?

You wanted some journal articles, start on THIS BLOG ENTRY, he not only cites some articles appearing in Science, he actually does some interesting math.

You wanted some journal articles, start on THIS BLOG ENTRY, he not only cites some articles appearing in Science, he actually does some interesting math.

I believe Professor Carter has summed up nicely why I shouldn't see the movie

"Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

I think you very well understand (or maybe I am giving you too much credit) that my point was that you can always cite a few scientists who hold onto an absurd minority position about anything - be it the cause of climate change, or the cause of AIDS.

And yet you've ignored my point that sometimes those kooks ARE RIGHT!

OK try this again...

THIS IS THE BLOG ENTRY

"Global warming denial has about as much credibility as holocaust denial."

Aarontime, that's probably the stupidest and most offensive thing I've ever read on a blog. Congrats on being the biggest jerk in the entire blogosphere.

TLDietrich -

You write, "We've only been taking measurements here on earth for less than 200 years too - on a planet billions of years old"

Wrong. Ice cores taken in Antarctica are able to trace the temperature to within a few tenths of a degree going back hundreds of thousands of years. We simply do not have anything like that kind of data for Mars. When we take core samples of the Martian polar caps, then we can talk.

Warriornation -

Just as I thought - you don't have the balls to see the movie you are criticizing. What are you afraid of "warrior"?

"Global Warming" is a more extremist religion than Wahhabi Islam. Dogma is treated as truth and the Faithull call Jihad against infidels who do not accept that truth. Logic and reason have nothing to do with their position: they simply parrot the same old lines to anyone daring to question their "unassailable" truth.

They fret and moan about "Global Warming" because it's Big, Scary, and something they feel helpless to do anything about. In the old days, when we lived in caves and our biggest real worry was whether we'd eat or be eaten the next day they'd listen to the noises in the night, imagine huge and terrible monsters out there, and waste the tribe's sleeping time warning us about the danger. Constantly. Incessently. Back then we could kick them ouf of the cave and tell them to whine somewhere else, but today with the Internet they're in our faces constantly, wasting literally terabytes of bandwidth with their insane rants.

Unpleasant truth: There is nothing anyone, anywhere, in any position of power, can do about Global Warming assuming it exists. The failure of the Kyoto treaty proves that. Even the signatories are failing not only to meet their obligations to reduce CO2 levels, their CO2 levels continue to rise. And Kyoto, even if fully implemented, would barely make a dent in CO2 production. If you can't get Kyoto to work then you can't replace it with something far more draconian that might.

So like it or not we are stuck with uncontrollable climate change. It's going to get warm, it's going to get cold. It's going to rain, it's going to be dry. We have no control over any of that, at any level from the individual to the most totalitarian government in the world. My suggestion is to find some way to pack up the Global Warming lunatics and kick them out of the cave somehow so we can concentrate on dealing with the problems we can deal with.

Yes, I was at Yosemite a few weeks ago and I saw a bench and building crumble right before my eyes.

So warbonnet,

Did you report it or were you drinking that neocon koolaid? If you aren't going to take the charge seriously I won't even dignify your response with an answer.

I am leaving for Yellowstone and Glacier NP early tommorow. Want to see the glaciers while there are still glaciers there. Supposed to be melted by 2050. Then I suppose they will change the name from Glacier National Park to the RCA Dome and Mountain Snowmobile Lodge and Hunters Resort.

Will post photos on my blog when I get back.

Matt Margolis wrote:

"I have not seen Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," nor will I."

And so, with mind shut tight, you proceed criticize Gore, his movie and the point he's making.

That tells me much more about you and your approach than about Gore, his movie and his cause. To top it off, you presume to evaluate the movie's audience.

As for dissenting voices in the scientific community, so what? If you'll go back and review the Republican talking points memos from back when the alleged need for tort reform was being touted as an unfolding crisis more horrible than nuclear war, the AIDS epidemic and B.O., all rolled into one, you'll notice an interesting claim: scientific experts are available to support whatever a well-heeled client wants supported.

Venture a little research and you'll discover that in years past, major corporate and financial interests bought scientific support for the notion smoking was actually good for people and that there was nothing to fear from asbestos exposure.

Now, major corporate and financial interests can and do bankroll scientific support for the idea global warming is a myth. And why wouldn't they? It's a matter of trying to protect lucrative vested interests, at least until they can figure out ways to make even more money out of alternative fuels and motive-power sources.

But hey, pardon the interruption and inconvenient truths. You can go back to prattling the party line now.

"Let's not forget, just two months ago scientists also said Mars is now warmer than it was just a few years ago...is that being caused by human beings and SUVs also"-Warriornation

OBVIOUSLY, it's being caused by invisible Martians driving invisible SUVs. The tinfoil hat brigade knows this but they're keeping the info "Top Secret!" 'cause the Martians have threatened to launch an interplanetary war against "Terra Prime"-aka "Third Rock from the Sun"-aka "Earth"-if the Democrats try to take away their SUV's. Btw, the Martians want to know why Terrans decided to name their planet "dirt".
:P

I know, I know, I'm suffering from radiation poisoning which is affecting my mind due to the depletion of the ozone layer due to global warming due to invisible Martians flying their invisible SUV's around our planet "Dirt" while surveying our planet and performing scientific tests on cows to determine if they are also causing global warming. It's a vicious cyle.

Ya know this conspiracy stuff is kind of fun.
:)

You Neocons are pathetic. There are a few other truths that you should know too. Sex isn't exclusively for pleasure and making money, no matter what you may think. Mother Earth is sacred, and demands respect like any typical woman, not to be used for your pleasure, but to be respected and loved. Figure out what you really need, and compare it to the needs of a holyman in India, or would that an inconvenience?

One more important factoid...

...Al Gore is actually working with the invisible Martians to destroy Earth via global warming! The proof is irrefutable...it's Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth". He made it knowing