“Here’s something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore’s schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth” contains at least eleven material falsehoods.“
“Here’s something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore’s schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth” contains at least eleven material falsehoods.“
Joe B, unfortunately, unconveniently and ignorantly a whole lot of people have taken said propaganda as truth not fluff.
surely you jest
Joe B: Likewise, I think you missed my “cut” as well. My point is that the science behind AGW is being ignored by those who find it inconvienent.
As I have said, I have not seen Gore’s movie (and to be honest, I have no intention to see it). But I am aware of the science behind it and while I remain open to alternative ideas (and in fact actively seek out alternative points of view) I have not seen anything that challenges the science in response to Gore’s movie. If some people have issues with some of the examples that he uses, then great, lets look at them. But that does not change the underlying science.
That is what I think should be done, get past the hype and look at the science.
Regards,
John
But that’s the whole point, john cross, the science does not support AGW. The reason people are rejecting AGW is not because they find it ‘inconvenient’ but because the science is flawed.
The fact that you accept the flawed ‘science’ in Al Gore’s movie (regardless of whether or not you’ve seen the movie) is your business. The fact that it is flawed, is germane to a lot of people’s conclusions to reject AGW.
I accept climate change as natural; I accept pollution caused by humans as requiring clean-up by humans because natural forces can’t keep pace with the pollution. (I acknowledge that all organic systems ‘pollute’). I accept the there is some measure of climate change caused by human activity, ie, industrial devt will warm up a local niche area. I don’t accept global climate change as due to human activity. I don’t accept human CO2 as causal of global climate change.
The number – and analysis- of scientists who reject AGW is enough evidence. The fact that you stick to it, – well, that’s you.
et: do you accept that there is a “natural” greenhouse effect? Do you accept that CO2 is part of that greenhouse effect?
If so, what is different about the anthropogenic CO2 added over the last 100 years?
In regards to the number of scientists who reject – or for that matter accept – AGW it is largely irrelevant. It is the old consensus argument and as such is not particularly convincing.
But since it is relevant here, let me quote from the actual Judgement that raised the 9 points (and now that I have read the judgement, it is 9, not 11 points).
So they don’t seem to feel that the number of scientists who reject AGW is “enough evidence”.
John, you seem be having problems counting, I went to the link and counted 11 points? Do you have a filtered URL that only goes to AGW supporting sites? The first line in your quote renders all after it invalid, especially the bit about the “latest conclusions of the IPCC”.
You just don’t seem to understand that quoting BS doesn’t make it real. We don’t believe in Al Gores “science” nor the IPCC’s “science” because it was all “settled” – once you decide to settle the debate on science it becomes a belief – which is faith based system. I would have to say that you are arguing a religious belief, which you are entitled to do but don’t call it science.
John Cross,
I’m not interested in debating junk science but your last post is hard to resist; the baseless assertions you peddle have no merit whatsoever. First off increases in CO2 are in large part due to water evaporation because of slightly warming temperatures. It’s a symptom not the cause. If you’re so concerned about CO2 emission maybe all the liberals should hold their breath until they pass out and have a talk with the cows an d tell them to stop excreting all that methane.
By the way, to the liberal idiots [redundancy], if you’re so concerned about emissions then you should be the loudest ones demanding that America switch to the cleanest energy source available: Nuclear. Ironically the bedwetting French are one of the world’s leaders in this area. If liberals were as concerned as they claim they’d be all for nuclear but they’re not. Why? They’re not interested in real solutions; they’re interested in feel good babble that more often than not has dire unintended consequences; but such is the way of the mind of the liberal morons.
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
The same scientifically illiterate morons were saying there’s going to be global cooling, they claimed there would be a food shortage due to overpopulation, etc. Liberals using junk science to further their agenda is a long tradition.
(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects.”
Keep telling yourself that; the narcissism is staggering. Before you Global Climate Quijote’s go pushing windmills maybe you can get it to rain in some drought-ridden areas. See if you can affect weather in a few sq kilometers then you can go on your grandiose feel good mission to battle Mother Nature on a global level, at your expense.
(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise (“climate change”);
Utter nonsense. The hottest temps on record are in the 1930’s and on average the temps between 1910-1930 were hotter than 1990-2007. Secondly, the recorded data only goes back approx 100 years.
(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise (“climate change”);
Again more feelings based nonsense.
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (“greenhouse gases”);
Of course there’s no evidence to back this assertion up, but don’t let facts get in the way of your feelings, John.
(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise (“climate change”);
John, when I was living [for a short while] in Israel as a kid about 17 years ago it was 126 degrees during the day in summer and about 90 degrees at night. Two years ago it snowed in Israel, which is unthinkable. How do you reconcile this?
Then I’d like to know what caused the half dozen or so Ice Ages to recede/melt. What happened to the ice sheet covering North America thousands of years ago?
john cross – your four points are ambiguous and empty rhetoric; they sound like any second rate political platform.
No, the majority of scientists do NOT accept AGW. And stop with the ‘peer-reviewed’ nonsense; publishing in a peer-reviewed journal is NOT indicative of truth. I’m an academic and I assure you that peer reviews can inhibit rather than advance knowledge.
I don’t know what you mean by ‘natural’ greenhouse effect. And what’s your point about CO2 – which is a greenhouse gas?
The question is, whether/not greenhouse gases are the primary cause of climate change, in particular, warming. I happen to find the scientific arguments against this far more convincing than the dogma proposing it.
You, of course, are convinced of AGW. Enjoy.
commsguy: If you re-read my post I was talking about the actual judgment, not Sheppard’s interpretation of it. To quote Mr Justice Burton from paragraph 23 of the judgment
In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters – 9 in all – upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate.
So it would appear that it is Mr. Sheppard who has a problem counting.
Regards,
John
Apollyon: I am not sure that I follow your comment about CO2 and water. The current increase in CO2 is due to anthropogenic sources, no doubt about it. I have gone through the reasons on this site several times but I am willing to do it once more if you doubt it. Also, I have expressed my views on nuclear power on this site if you are interested.
In regards to global cooling, I have also discussed this in the past but would be happy to go over it again
But this comment of yours is interesting. The point was:
(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise (“climate change”);
And you said Utter nonsense. The hottest temps on record are in the 1930’s and on average the temps between 1910-1930 were hotter than 1990-2007. Secondly, the recorded data only goes back approx 100 years. .
Can you please back up your assertion that the hottest global temperatures are from the 1930’s (hint, you are thinking of the temperatures for the lower 48). And you are correct that the records only go back about a100 years – but I am not sure of the relevance since they are commenting on the last half century (last time I checked this was about 50 years).
You finished with this statement Then I’d like to know what caused the half dozen or so Ice Ages to recede/melt. What happened to the ice sheet covering North America thousands of years ago?
The answer (as I have gone over I the past) is Milankovitch cycles.
Regards,
John
et: First, they are not my points. I just quoted another part of the same judgment that raised the 9 “errors” in An Inconvenient Truth. If you don’t like it, tell it to the Judge!
In regards to natural greenhouse effect, that is the effect from greenhouse gases that have kept the earth at a livable temperature as opposed to -18C which it would be if there were no GHGs.
Having reviewed both sides of the argument, I have found the skeptical side to be less sound. However in science, nothing is final so I shall continue to look at both sides of the argument.
Will Al Gore win a Nobel Prize in a new category, “Serial Lying”?
Can you please back up your assertion that the hottest global temperatures are from the 1930’s (hint, you are thinking of the temperatures for the lower 48).
Heh, as if there are credible average global temp. records from the ’30’s to compare.
ol hoss: take it up with Apollyon. It was his comment.
By the way, hows that rewriting of physics going?
Regards,
John
Like all leftists, your reading comprehension isn’t the best. You pointed out his comment referred to continental US temps. Mine doesn’t.
Re the physics: still haven’t figured out how a cooler object can heat a warmer object.
ol hoss: Ah, sorry, so you accept that the US temperatures are accurate but the global ones are not. Good enough, there are many here who would disagree with you on that, but I am not one of them.
In regards to your project to re-write the laws of physics, here is another thought experiment for you to consider:
Take an object at a temperature of 50 C in a vacuum. Near it, place an object at a temperature of 0 C. I think we agree that the 50 C object will emit IR radiation that the cooler object will absorb.
Now, beside the 0 C object, put one at 100 C. Now what happens? Does the 50 C stop emitting since there is a warmer one near by, or does the 100 C develop a reflective surface because there is a cooler one near. (As an aside, you just may want to put a hold on questioning people’s comprehension until you have finished overturning physics).
Regards,
John
…so you accept that the US temperatures are accurate…
I didn’t say they are accurate. In fact I didn’t say anything about them. You reading comprehension still needs improving. Which is why it’s useless to discuss with you how the atmosphere can warm the earth.
ol hoss: your exact quote was “Heh, as if there are credible average global temp. records from the ’30’s to compare.
So what are you comparing to? I might suggest that it may be your comprehension skills that are in question as well as your physics.
Regards,
John
To compare to the present day average global temps.
Talk about dense.
ol hoss: we have come full circle, the only thing I can say is to take it up with Apollyon. It was his comment and the implication that the temperatures are accurate is his as well. I just pointed out that his error was that he was mixing up global and US temperatures.
I do find it somewhat telling that you seem more interested in trying to attribute Apollyon’s comments to me as opposed to discussing the physics of radiation heat transfer, although – based on your apparent understanding – perhaps not surprising.
Regards,
John