If Al Gore is so confident in his message, how come he wont allow a head to head debate. This poor fellow flew in from England to debate him and was told he couldn't talk. "Science" is at it again http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing
Would Christian churches allow a Rabbi in on Sunday morning to debate the divinity of Jesus?
Al isnt the expert, hes just the mouthpiece, GW is here to stay and unless we stop it now our children will pay and dearly. Al is Gods messenger on earth, sent to save us from certain doom, but we dont have long.
show's how little you know...
didn't you know its NOT global warming anymore...it's not climate change...
pooralgore wrote:
If Al Gore is so confident in his message, how come he wont allow a head to head debate. This poor fellow flew in from England to debate him and was told he couldn't talk. "Science" is at it again
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing
Ummm, I seem to recall the Democrats winning the election and having control of the House. The Democrats control the committee. Big oil's buddy, Joe Barton, does not run the committee, Democrats run it. They don't owe Joe Barton or that kook from the UK anything. This is just another silly publicity stunt, like the petition project or oil Senator Inhofe's list of 650 "scientists" that disagree with global warming (50 of them asked to be removed from the list when they found out they were on it).
Thats small potatoes compared to the number of scientists who asked to be removed from the list of those who supposedly agree with it.
He said the debate is over because he refuses to debate as the scientists who disagree with his "theories" would mop the floor with him.
What do others say about the author of that report, a man who is on the payroll of a fossil fuel lobbying group?
John Holdren told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, "Michaels is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians... He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."
Climate scientist Tom Wigley, a lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is quoted in Ross Gelbspan's book The Heat is On: "Michaels' statements on [the subject of computer models] are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation… Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading."
Peter Gleick, a conservation analyst and president of the Oakland-based Pacific Institute, said: "Pat Michaels is not one of the nation's leading researchers on climate change. On the contrary, he is one of a very small minority of nay-sayers who continue to dispute the facts and science about climate change in the face of compelling, overwhelming, and growing evidence."
sooowhat wrote:
... GW is here to stay ...
Where was it before? And if it left, where would it go?
Heres an even bigger list, http://tadcronn.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/global-warming-consensus-31000-scientists-disagree/
hereyougo wrote:
Heres an even bigger list,
http://tadcronn.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/global-warming-consensus-31000-scientists-disagree/
Yeah. That is the sham "petition project" I mentioned in my post. Anyone can sign that thing and claim to be a scientist. The people that run the site, aside from being a weird group of "medical" scientists with no expertise in climate science, do not police the petition and do not require any particular discipline in the sciences to sign the petition. But, for those that doubt global warming science, anything that sounds good is good.
hereyougo wrote:
Heres an even bigger list,
http://tadcronn.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/global-warming-consensus-31000-scientists-disagree/
"According to OISM officials, the purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that "the claim of 'settled science' and an overwhelming 'consensus' in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong."
So what does it take to be included among the 31,000 "experts" on the petition? Well, according to the OISM criteria, any undergraduate science degree will do just fine. Bet you never thought that BS you earned 20 years ago made you a qualified climatologist. Congratulations!
OISM also wants to let you know that 9,021 of the signers hold PhDs. They don't specify what the doctorates are in, but they repeat that figure quite a bit, as if it means something. Since the group was nice enough to list all 31,000 signers, including the dead people, let's take a look at the qualifications of three randomly-selected "climate experts."
* W. Kline Bolton, M.D. is a professor of medicine and Nephrology Division Chief at the University of Virginia. Nephrology deals with the study of the function and diseases of the kidney.
* Zhonggang Zeng is one of the 9,000 with a PhD. He is a professor of mathematics at Northeastern Illinois University. His most recent publication is entitled "Computing multiple roots of inexact polynomials."
* Hub Hougland is a dentist in Muncie, Indiana. He was inducted into the Indiana Basketball Hall of Fame last year."
from:
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1654/There is absolutely no debate among CLIMATE SCIENTISTS that mankind is contributing to global warming. Don't you think that if there was any debate at all, that all of the climate scientists would be working for industry groups and making millions of dollars a year to offer alternate theories? I guess that some of you are too stupid to understand what political spin is. It's what all of the tobacco companies did for decades in denying that there was a link between cigarettes and cancer. You're a complete and utter sucker for falling for it and I'm sorry if you don't believe this. Any doctor crazy enough to go along with the tobacco industry's claims was payed millions and put on a pedestal. There is a lot more money to be made in the lobbyist industry and private sector than there is in academia. Now Gore has always struck me as a sleazy hypocrite like most politicians and there is no doubt that he uses some political spin to get his ideas across. However, he is correct in his views on climate change and it is a serious issue facing humanity.
I'm currently doing my MSc in climate science and have read up on most of the research. I will not debate this topic further as it has already been done to death on these forums and, justifiably, people don't want to take the word of an anonymous poster. I would suggest reading Mark Bowen's 2 books on climate change if you are interested in the topic. They are very accessible but delve fairly deep into the science and are more interesting than most books. For instance, "Thin Ice" is about a guy who has spent his life drilling for ice cores on the summits of 6000m mountains for most of his career. "Censoring Science" is about the Bush Government's attempt to censor research coming from NASA and other government-funded agencies that could prove sensitive to energy policy. It really just pisses me off that a lot of people think that there is still debate among legitimate climate scientists that humans are contributing to global warming, when in fact there is not.
well you're actually wrong...
ever hear of Richard Lindzen?
d-head wrote:
well you're actually wrong...
ever hear of Richard Lindzen?
You mean this guy?
According to Ross Gelbspan in a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine, Lindzen "... charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,[24] was underwritten by OPEC."[25][26] However, according to Alex Beam in a 2006 article in the The Boston Globe, Lindzen said that although he had accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from "fossil-fuel types" in the 1990s, he had not received any money from these since.[27] Lindzen has elsewhere described the Gelbspan allegation as a "slander."[28]
Lindzen has been a member of several think tanks including the Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute that have accepted money from companies such as ExxonMobil and Daimler Chrysler.[26]
yes
2 points
1. i guess the fact that he hasn't taken money in over 15 years means nothing.
2. if your concerned that money is causing this guy to think or say something one way then you should surely question Mr. Al Gore. Al Gore is a Partner at GIM which makes money from selling carbon credits and other global warming scare tactics...
d-head wrote:
yes
2 points
1. i guess the fact that he hasn't taken money in over 15 years means nothing.
2. if your concerned that money is causing this guy to think or say something one way then you should surely question Mr. Al Gore. Al Gore is a Partner at GIM which makes money from selling carbon credits and other global warming scare tactics...
Lindzen hasn't taken money DIRECTLY from oil and gas interests. He gets plenty of O & G money through Cato Institute and George C. Marshall Institute. Lindzen was also a brave crusader against the histeria over cigarettes. In other words, the guy is a nay-sayer attention whore.
Sure, Al Gore stands to profit from cap and trade. But that is no secret. And Al Gore can lose his shirt if cap and trade fails. No downside for Mr. Lindzen, who will always be able to find a paycheck from a think tank to say what big business wants him to say.
Not to mention the fact that Lindzen himself admitted that he had zero evidence to back up his claim when tested by other scientists. In fact, his claims involving water vapor have been proven to be bunk by other studies but he still stands by them.
Yeah, let's do what we can to bad mouth and discredit Dr. Michaels.
Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and professor of natural resources at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and an author of the 2003 climate science “Paper of the Year” selected by the Association of American Geographers. His research has been published in major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science. He received his Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979. He wrote a book in 2006 called Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.
Also Patrick J. Michaels is a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.
He also is a visiting scientist with the Marshall Institute in Washington, D.C., and an active participant in the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
His latest book out this year...
Kids...the lesson here is if you disagree with Algore the left will try to smear you.
Stoking the furnace wrote:
Yeah, let's do what we can to bad mouth and discredit Dr. Michaels.
Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and professor of natural resources at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and an author of the 2003 climate science “Paper of the Year” selected by the Association of American Geographers. His research has been published in major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science. He received his Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979. He wrote a book in 2006 called Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.
Also Patrick J. Michaels is a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.
He also is a visiting scientist with the Marshall Institute in Washington, D.C., and an active participant in the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
His latest book out this year...
http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Extremes-Global-Warming-Science/dp/1933995238/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240625124&sr=8-1Kids...the lesson here is if you disagree with Algore the left will try to smear you.
In a July 27, 2006 ABC News report, it was revealed that a Colorado energy cooperative, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, had given Michaels $100,000. The report noted that the cooperative has a vested interest in opposing mandatory carbon dioxide caps. The wider context of the report concerned entities within the fossil fuel industry giving money to scientists in an effort to create a perception that there is a lack of consensus in the scientific community regarding global warming. [16] But Michaels has long been a skeptic of what he sees as environmental alarmism. He does not, however, deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming.
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D., (born February 15, 1950) is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a retired professor from the University of Virginia.[1] He is a former university climatologist for Virginia, a position he had been appointed to in 1980 [1][broken citation][2][broken citation] and acknowledged he no longer held in 2007.[3] His professional specialty is the influence of climate on agriculture. In interviews Michaels has said that he does not contest the basic scientific principles behind greenhouse warming and acknowledges that global mean temperature has increased in recent decades, though he is widely regarded in the media as a global warming skeptic [4][5][6][7][8] who contends that the changes will be minor, not catastrophic, and even beneficial in many cases. He has written extensive editorials on this topic for the mass media, and for think tanks and their publications such as Regulation[9].
Kids.... the lesson here is that even scientists who are payed off by the energy industry aren't denying that humans are contributing to climate change through CO2 emissions. His strategy is to low-ball the expected change in climate and focus on the benefits of global warming. For example, no scientist would deny that some areas in the World are going to see more productive agriculture due to warming climate and the fact that plants utilize CO2. On the other hand, other parts of the World are going to see increased desertification and extinction due to habitat loss. The really big concern is the loss of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets which would cause a significant rise in sea level.
Now I recall where I've heard of this Patrick J. Michaels character before. He flat out lied to Congress about Jim Hansen's climate graphs in order to convince them that there was great uncertainty in our knowledge of climate change when in fact the predictions were extremely accurate. He is a smarmy spin-doctor and those who are serious about the study of climate science view him with contempt. Quite frankly, climate scientists who are skeptical of climate change are as rare as evolutionary biologists who don't believe in evolution. There may be one or two wacko contrarians but there is really no question in the validity of the science.