Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore arrives at the Canada 2020 conference in Mont Tremblant, Quebec, Wednesday June 14, 2006. Gore will deliver his message about global warming as the keynote dinner speaker at the conference. Canada 2020 is a dynamic and networked ideas generation council that takes a unique approach to addressing Canadas public policy opportunities and challenges. Image Credit: AP Photo/CP, Jonathan HaywardCanadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper is squarely in the cross-hairs of activists like Al Gore.
Back in April, P.M. Harper pulled back on the efforts of some in the Canadian government to tie Canada to the Kyoto accords when he decided to listen to the advice of 60 leading international climate change experts.
Apparently, the opposition to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" tenants is not backing down.
Excerpts from the Canada Free Press -
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris - Canadafreepress.com - Monday, June 12, 2006
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his 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."
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
----
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
----
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
----
Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."
----
Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India.
----
Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
Read All>>
In summation:
"Gore's Propaganda Crusade Is Mostly Based On Junk Science", "Misleading", "Different Technologies And Year-Parts Used In Comparisons (apples/oranges)", "CO2 Levels Have No Effect On World Temperature", "Gore Sites 'Vast Majority Of Scientists' vs. 'Climate Experts' ", "Gore's Circumstantial Arguments Are So Weak That They Are Pathetic".
'Nuff Said!
2 comments:
A Canadian paper had to get experts in Australia and Finland to make its point??
Seems like a long way to go if there are so many scientists who have this point of view.
There is a huge industry making money of the GW scam the way they did off the ozone hole scam. Many scientists support it because they get grant money to study it. Politicians justify their existance by trying to solve "problems", so scientists have created a "problem" based on computer models.
Yet, Computer Models are worthless if the data is incomplete. If you read their literature, they admit they still don't understand a lot of factors. For example, Antarctica is getting colder, not warmer. Arctic sea levels are dropping not rising. Gore's claims don't watch the actual studies he cites. Sea levels have been rising very slowly in the 12 years they have studied it. So slow that it would take 100 years at this rate to go up one foot. This according to the NASA study he claims says we'll all be drowning in 75 years.
The scientists that dare speak out against this farce are often ostracized by their grant grubbing friends, lefties and politicians in on the act, but the fact is there is no overwhelming consensus on GW. In fact, when Gore tried to come up with a list of "thousands of scientists" who support it. Researchers found most of them had no background in Climatology. They were academics, psychologists, etc.
The fact that most of the people pushing GW are leftists, should tell you it's political not scientific. It's anti-corporate, anti-capitalism.
It's just another power play by the sme people who think Socialism is the answer to everything.
Post a Comment