One of the good things about living in a free country is that you are free to go.
You can't take South Carolina with you, but you may go.
Let's see; last time we tried this it didn't go so well. Why not try it again!
A Ruling of the British High Court Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth
The decision by the British Government to distribute Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. The Court found that the film was misleading in nine respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
The inaccuracies are:
1. The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
3. The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
4. The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
5. The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
6. The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
8. The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7 m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40 cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
9. The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government was unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
Also, the Court's interim ruling included the following:
1. The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
2. The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
Here is another website for your consideration:
Just a few more quotes:
"I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. ... I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have"
"So, if we show Keith's series in this plot, we have to comment that 'something else' is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series and the potential factors that might lead to it being 'warmer' than the Jones et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this regard. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates"
"Indeed, if the non-temperature signal that causes the decline in tree-ring density begins before 1960, then a short 1931-60 period might yield a more biased result than using a longer 1881-1960 period."
The code for the computer climate models was freely manipulated in order to force the desired results. Despite their best efforts, the programmers could never get these programs to run properly, occasionally producing nonsensical results. And the data sets used by these programs were clearly in a hopeless state. Here are samples of some of the code comments left by the programmers:
"stop in 1960 to avoid the decline"
"stop in 1940 to avoid the decline"
"but why does the sum-of-squares parameter OpTotSq go negative?!!"
"and already I have that familiar Twilight Zone sensation."
"this renders the station counts totally meaningless."
"Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)"
"As we can see, even I'm cocking it up!"
"yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases"
"recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED"
"Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!"
"artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline"
"we know the file starts at yr 440, but we want nothing till 1400"
"It's botch after botch after botch."
"Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite."
"As far as I can see, this renders the [weather] station counts totally meaningless."
"So what's going on? I don't see how the 'final' precip file can have been produced from the 'final' precipitation database, even though the dates imply that. The obvious conclusion is that the precip file must have been produced before 23 Dec 2003, and then redated (to match others?) in Jan 04."
"You can't imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO [World Meteorological Organization] codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance ..."
"OH F--- THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases."
Also here is an interesting website on the actual observations vs the IPCC model. The graphs diverge greatly. What do you think?
Here is a graph showing 11k years of data, not "normalized" as Phil Jones, et al did at the CRU
BTW: E-mail file #942777075
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Phil Jones (Climatic Research Unit)
University of East Anglia
mat catastrophe and FCB - I posed a question, which did not require an ad hominem attack response, which is to clarify is an argument made personally against an opponent, instead of against the opponent's argument. All I ask is to discuss difference openly and freely. The Moore website states correctly as FCB pointed out. The IPCC leaked email support the statements by Moore:
"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
"…Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…"
Oh and I wish I were a paid to offer my opinions and thoughts. instead i am quiet thinker and researcher and I'd love to share a beer and duck fat fries with you at the Tattoed Moose anytime, my treat, as I too work for living.
Ooooh, got me again, this "Mr Fusion" is another paid troll that looks for any articles about global warming then spews his nonsense.
Variations in the earth's orbit around the sun.
Before you start, we are not at a point in these natural variations
that would explain the current warming, if anything, we should be experiencing slight cooling..
The sun's output hasn't changed, either.
What has changed is the output from the PR firms hired by the fossil fuel industries to try to convince people that their products are not the cause of global warming. These are the same PR companies that tried to convince us that cigarettes do not kill their users or those around them.
And of course, those who want to hear such nonsense tend to believe it.
And *I'm* a know-it-all?
Would you agree that when the glaciers covered most of the northern hemisphere, and what is present day Manhattan was under at least a mile of ice, mankind was not the cause of that melting.
What do you postulate was the the cause of that incredible change? Why then, is it impossible to imply that such is not happening now? The dynamism of the planetary weather is much more complex than a few computer models, in consideration of solar cycles, undersea volcanism, and biological changes.
I have written many models for various phenomenon, and the problem with any model it that each one is too small and too limited to capture and recalibrate error and bias. Ergo, they are good for a very limited number of iterations. After that is exceeded, the errors grow to large to make the "conclusions" relevant.
Just to be clear, when the glaciers covered most of North America, Europe and Asia, and the Pacific Ocean to Hawaii, (see this months issue of Nat Geo) we were not the cause of the temperature rise. What do you postulate that the cause of that melting?
Real or not, is climate change something to be fearful of, especially when weighed against its causes? I think being able to keep my food fresh, my home at a comfortable temperature, and travel anywhere on earth in less than a day is worth it being 1 degree warmer. If warming's caused by humans, wouldn't the cost of preventing it have been staying in the 19th century?
"Its obvious, Matt already knows everything and anyone that might differ with his opinion is just a peon."
Am I supposed to argue with this?
Don't go away , Artrogue, but if you make a list as you did you should have noted that that list represented a very small minority of scientists.
Otherwise, it looks like you are pushing an agenda.
Some day i might figure out why i even bother to post on here. Must be one of my own character flaws. Its obvious, Matt already knows everything and anyone that might differ with his opinion is just a peon.
We all know the majority of Scientists do believe it is caused by mankind, so there is no reason to list them all. I'm not trying to hide anything.
I wanted to make a list of Scientists that have differing opinions and don't seem to get the acknowledgement or press, for whatever reason. There are obviously well respected and accomplished Scientists who do not agree.
The heading 'Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown"
was taken from my sources. It was not intended to make any political statement.
Thats your bias.
As far as greedy ways maybe you should address your concerns to the major contributors to air pollution on the planet.
Chinese coal burning power plants that China is not about to change from and only pay lip service to the IPCC.
I'm sure they will listen to ur opinion.
The United States is small potatoes compared to China and India and they could careless what we say or do.
"There is no consenus among scientists that Anthropogenic Climate Change is occuring."
"- Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes:"
So, humans are not part of the natural process?
"Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown"
Ten years ago, the conservative mythology was that there was no such thing as climate change or global warming, now it's "we don't know what's causing it but it sure as hell isn't our selfish and greedy ways".
Why did you leave out the list of scientists who consider climate change to be a real phenomenom?
Oh, I get it, lack of space.
There is no consenus among scientists that Anthropogenic Climate Change is occuring. Unless maybe you just ignore all dissenters as quacks. In any case, Scientific theories are not determined by pure consensus. Science is not a democratic process.
- Scientists who question the accuracy of IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) climate projections:
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003)
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
- Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes:
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa
- Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to IPCC
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists
- Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[
Patrick Michaels, retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper