Global Warming

[Widewing]

So, does Al Gore have the courage to accept this offer?

Al Gore Challenge

I doubt it...

My regards,

Widewing

[Toad]

WW, Gore has no choice but to accept the challenge.

Monckton, a former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher during her years as  Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, said, "A careful study of the
 substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, An  Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and  errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide."

A foofaraw has been declared; Gore HAS to accept.  

[GtoRA2]

The Director of the Great global warming Scam responds to critics.

Link
The artical.

The Great Global Warming Swindle', broadcast by Channel 4, put the case for scepticism about man-made climate change. The programme sparked a heated debate and charges of scientific inaccuracy. Here, its director, Martin Durkin, responds to the critics.

On March 8, Channel 4 broadcast my programme. Since then, supporters of the theory of man-made global warming have published frothing criticism. I am attacked for using an "old" graph depicting temperature over the past 1,000 years. They say I should have used a "new" graph - one used by Al Gore, known as the "hockey stick", because it looks like one.

But the hockey stick has been utterly discredited. The computer programme used to generate it was found to produce hockey-stick shapes even when fed random data (I refer readers to the work of McIntyre & McKitrick and to the Wegman Report, all available on the internet). Other than the discredited hockey stick, the graph used by us (and published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is the standard, accepted record of temperature in this period.


A critic claims that one of the graphs cited by us, illustrating the extraordinarily close correlation between solar variation and temperature change, has since been "corrected". It most certainly has not. The graph was produced by Prof Eigil Friis-Christensen, the head of the Danish National Space Centre, who says it still stands. But if the global-warmers don't like that graph, there are plenty of others that say the same thing.

No one any longer seriously disputes the link between solar activity and temperature in earth's climate history. I urge readers to look up on the net: Veizer, Geoscience Canada, 2005; and Soon, Geophysical Research Letters, 2005.

In the film, we used three graphs depicting temperature change in the 20th century. On one there was an error in the dates on the bottom. This was corrected for the second transmission of the programme, on More4, last Monday. It made no difference. Global-warmers can pick whichever graph they like. The problem for them remains the same. The temperature rise at the beginning of the century (prior to 1940, when human emissions of CO2 were relatively insignificant) was as great, most graphs show greater, than the temperature rise at the end of the century.

So what else do they hit me with? Prof Carl Wunsch, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who appeared in the film, later claimed he was duped into taking part. He was not.

The remarkable thing is not that I was attacked. But that the attacks have been so feeble. The ice-core data was the jewel in the global-warming crown, cited again and again as evidence that carbon dioxide 'drives' the earth's climate. In fact, as its advocates have been forced to admit, the ice-core data says the opposite. Temperature change always precedes changes in CO2 by several hundred years. Temperature drives CO2, not the other way round. The global-warmers do not deny this. They cannot.

During the post-war economic boom, while industrial emissions of CO2 went up, the temperature went down (hence the great global-cooling scare in the 1970s). Why? They say maybe the cooling was caused by SO2 (sulphur dioxide) produced by industry. But they say it mumbling under their breath, because they know it makes no sense. Thanks to China and the rest, SO2 levels are far, far higher now than they were back then. Why isn't it perishing cold?

Too many journalists and scientists have built their careers on the global-warming alarm. Certain newspapers have staked their reputation on it. The death of this theory will be painful and ugly. But it will die. Because it is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Interesting, but I wish he would have gone into the Wunsch part a bit more.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Toad
WW, Gore has no choice but to accept the challenge.



A foofaraw has been declared; Gore HAS to accept.  

LOLOL sounds like a challenge no manly man could avoid.... Foofaraws can't be avoided, like skidmarks in a 6th grader's shorts.

My regards,

Widewing

[FastFwd]

Interesting quote from M. Thatcher.


I read Carl Sagan's book "Billions & Billions" about 10 years ago. He had been discussing global warming issues with a US politician who, like some others I have seen post on this topic, claimed that warmer temperatures would be "good for humans", and that increased levels of warmth/sun could easily be dealt with if we were to wear sunglasses. As Sagan pointed out in the book, this was not an option for life forms lower down in the food chain.

I gained the impression that he felt he was banging his head against a wall when trying to discuss these matters with politicians. But he did make one notable exception - someone who, in Sagan's belief, had a complete grasp of the issues, and that was Margaret Thatcher.

[lazs2]

curval... you haven't even seen both sides?    I have stated here plenty of times that I look at both sides.   I listen to NPR as well as right wing talk shows..  I follow links here to some to the most bizzare left wing sites on the planet.

What is odd about me noticing a show that was aired on BBC?  Does that mean that I think the BBC is fair and balanced?   Hardly..it is pretty far left so far as I can see.   They aired it tho.

dred... Oh.. I get it.. you aren't really for banning things you just say that to get me worked up?    But then... you go on to say that some things are not our right and that the government should decide what we drive?    You ask when I became an expert on global climate change?   Probly about the same time that half the "scientists" in the 2500 UN group did... reviewers... mathmaticians... people with no climate, much less global climate, experiance.

hell... I only listen.  I don't claim any expertise yet... My certification and work in the field of man made pollution is probly a lot more impressive than some of the bogus "scientists" on the UN list which is... not much in either case.

In the documentary... the scientists in it were the some of the most powerful in the field of climate and research.  If they say it is a myth...  why should I panic and listen to you?

Did you watch the program?  

No?   well... watch it and then you will know the answer to "what harm can it do?"

MTBE in the water and DDT bans.. it can do a lot of harm... developing nations... imagine the harm our (your) restrictions on them will do to their economy... people will die...or.. more accurately... continue to die.. in the millions if you keep them from the necessities of life like electricity and transportation.

Watch the program.

and... fastfwd... one pleasure trip of one jet will use more fuel than an SUV in a lifetime.. if you ban the trips there will be no jets taking off with 1 or 150 or 50 passengers.. the jet will simply not burn the fuel... and... the average SUV gets about what?   20-30 mpg?  you might save 10 mpg over some crapbox that won't hold what is needed or tow what you want.

Until pleasure travel is banned then there is no reason to pretend to "do something" by banning vehicles that are useful.

MY dad came over all worked up about man made global warming and what breeding people we were gonna send to santa claus land to save the human race.

I showed him the youtube full version of the program... he has seen the "world is ending according to the inventor of the internet" one.

He felt a lot better... he mentioned that the scientists on the swindle program had the oomph and the algore actors and failed politicians had the emotion.


lazs

[Bronk]

Originally posted by FastFwd
Interesting quote from M. Thatcher.



I gained the impression that he felt he was banging his head against a wall when trying to discuss these matters with politicians. But he did make one notable exception - someone who, in Sagan's belief, had a complete grasp of the issues, and that was Margaret Thatcher.

She wouldn't have been using it for political gain, now would she?



Bronk

[FastFwd]

and... fastfwd... one pleasure trip of one jet will use more fuel than an SUV in a lifetime.. if you ban the trips there will be no jets taking off with 1 or 150 or 50 passengers.. the jet will simply not burn the fuel...

So instead, you'd have 50-100 SUVs clogging the roads for every jet that was banned.

Originally posted by Bronk
She wouldn't have been using it for political gain, now would she?



Bronk

Hardly. It was 1987. She was already at the top of her career and had just won her third general election victory with an unassailable majority in the house of commons. In September of that year, a meeting was held in Montreal to debate CFC usage and possibly limit their use.

I've just found the book to see exactly what it said, which is

Interior Secretary Donald Hodel, a conservative Reagan appointee averse to government controls, reportedly suggested that, instead of limiting CFC production, we all wear sunglasses and hats. This option is unavailable to the microorganisms at the base of the food chain that sustain life on Earth.
.
.
.
Substantial credit must be given to Ambassador Richard Benedick, who led the US delegation to Montreal, and to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who, trained in chemistry, understood the issue.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by FastFwd
I never suggested "limiting hobbies". Read again!

Oh......I`m reading you just fine .

I read Carl Sagan's book "Billions & Billions" about 10 years ago.

[Sabre]

Originally posted by FastFwd
Hardly. It was 1987. She was already at the top of her career and had just won her third general election victory with an unassailable majority in the house of commons. In September of that year, a meeting was held in Montreal to debate CFC usage and possibly limit their use.

Actually, if you watch the GGWS program, it notes there was a very big political aspect to Thatcher's support for man-made global warming.  Watch the program.

[FastFwd]

Already have.

[FastFwd]

So.......in other words.....just limit hobbies that doesn`t interest you. I get it.

Remember Hitech's analysis of the ENY balancing whines? He observed, correctly in my view, that the suggestions the whiners came up with all came under the heading of "Not impact me". Here, I see calls for bans on jets by people who don't use them, but the same people would object if THEY had to change THEIR lifestyles.

just sayin'

[john9001]

Originally posted by FastFwd
Remember Hitech's analysis of the ENY balancing whines? He observed, correctly in my view, that the suggestions the whiners came up with all came under the heading of "Not impact me". Here, I see calls for bans on jets by people who don't use them, but the same people would object if THEY had to change THEIR lifestyles.

just sayin'

take the train or a boat, enjoy the trip.

[WilldCrd]

Originally posted by lukster

Originally posted by WilldCrd
as you wish:



For the United States, meanwhile, the winter temperature was near average. The season got off to a late start and spring-like temperatures covered most of the eastern half of the country in January, but cold conditions set in in February, which was the third coldest on record.

For winter, statewide temperatures were warmer than average from Florida to Maine and from Michigan to Montana while cooler-than-average temperatures occurred in the southern Plains and areas of the Southwest.


I trust you read this part. [/B]

ofcourse i read it. Im just saying that since i work predominatly outdoors on outside plant phone and telecom systems this winter was a cakewalk compared to others in the last 15 years. When you sit for eight hours or more in a trailer splicing fiber optic lines and testing equipment and gaffing telelphone poles the memory of the COLD days sticks with ya.
sure we had a FEW cold days but for the most part it was mild. Not once did i have to knock of ice from a pole as i gaffed it. (of which i dont do much anymore thank god)
Now the summers lately have been a biotch.....just saying

[WilldCrd]

oh and I been riding my bike since mid feb atleast. mornings are chilly but the afternoons have been great!