How ironic, Dr. Gray, the guy that got the hurricane predictions right for one year, proceeded to have his prediction hyped every year after that, and has completely botched all forecasting of the hurricane season since.

Excellent find to support your argument!

10/14/2007 3:09:49 PM

I just find it ironic that many people on here used his wrongly predicted forecasts as proof that meteorologists are trying to brainwash the public into believing in global warming.

[Edited on October 14, 2007 at 4:08 PM. Reason : ]

10/14/2007 4:06:55 PM

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
By WILLIAM J. BROAD

Quote :

"Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, 'An Inconvenient Truth,' which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change. Don J. Easterbrook, a geology professor, has cited 'inaccuracies' in 'An Inconvenient Truth.' But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism. 'I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,' Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. 'But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.'"

Quote :

"Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots. Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for 'getting the message out,' Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were 'overselling our certainty about knowing the future.' Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe’s recent warming. The question is whether Mr. Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence. 'He’s a very polarizing figure in the science community,' said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center. 'Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.'"

Quote :

"While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of 'shrill alarmism.' Some of Mr. Gore’s centrist detractors point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that studies global warming. The panel went further than ever before in saying that humans were the main cause of the globe’s warming since 1950, part of Mr. Gore’s message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process. It estimated that the world’s seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches — down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent. Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist in Denmark long skeptical of catastrophic global warming, said in a syndicated article that the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, had refrained from scaremongering. 'Climate change is a real and serious problem' that calls for careful analysis and sound policy, Dr. Lomborg said. 'The cacophony of screaming,' he added, 'does not help.' So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period. Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said on a blog that Mr. Gore’s film did 'indeed do a pretty good job of presenting the most dire scenarios.' But the June report, he added, shows 'that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years.' Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a 'disinformation campaign' that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement. 'Hardly a week goes by,' Dr. Peiser said, 'without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,' including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming. Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms. 'Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,' Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. 'Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.' In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that 'our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this' threatened change. Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to '20 times greater than the warming in the past century.' Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. 'I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,' Dr. Easterbrook told the group. 'And I’m not a Republican.' Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria. 'For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,' Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. 'We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ei=5070&en=d615dc2ef256727f&ex=1175832000

[Edited on October 15, 2007 at 12:56 AM. Reason : .]

10/15/2007 12:56:34 AM

Quote :

"Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University"

lol

you just quoted an article that centered almost it's entire argument based on one old retired crank professor from WWU.

i'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you dont know about WWU, being that you're on the east coast. Just take a guess how many PhD's Western Washington graduates each year?

Zero. they dont have any doctoral programs. They are not a research-based institution.

WWU is where people go who cant make it into a Tier I or Tier II University, like say, Univ. of Washington, or Washington State.

I mean why dont you go cite some retired old guy from Pembroke State University while youre at it.

10/15/2007 4:28:25 AM

^ Why don't you cite your asshole? That's where you pull out most of your shitty thoughts, isn't it?

In any event, you conveniently overlooked the following scientists/experts mentioned in the article who echoed Easterbrook's concerns, didn't you, joe_shithead?

1. Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado:

Quote :

"[Gore's presentations are] 'overselling our certainty about knowing the future.'"

2. Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado:

Quote :

"'[Gore's] a very polarizing figure in the science community,' said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center. 'Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.'"

3. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences:

Quote :

"[Accused Gore of] 'shrill alarmism.'"

4. Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist:

Quote :

"[Concerning Gore's scaremongering] 'The cacophony of screaming,' he added, 'does not help.'"

5. Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama:

Quote :

"[Gore's film did] 'indeed do a pretty good job of presenting the most dire scenarios.' But the June report, he added, shows 'that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years.'"

6. Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network:

Quote :

"'Hardly a week goes by,' Dr. Peiser said, 'without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,' including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming."

7. Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia:

Quote :

"'Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,' Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. 'Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.'"

8. Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris:

Quote :

"'For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,' Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. 'We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ei=5070&en=d615dc2ef256727f&ex=1175832000

You disingenuous fuck.

10/15/2007 4:53:26 AM

Just to add fuel to the fire, here is a purported world leader in meteorology claiming that Al Gore's work is flawed. He is a little more rude than that, but you can read the article. Interesting debate that Gore has sparked.


http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html



FUCK TINY URL



Here's the first paragraph:

Quote :

"ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works". "

[Edited on October 15, 2007 at 9:22 AM. Reason : asdf]

10/15/2007 9:17:27 AM

The hilarious part is that all the sources hooksaw's been citing take anthropogenic climate change as a given, and are only arguing over whether or not Gore exaggerates it.

So good going on finally coming over to our side, hooksaw

10/15/2007 5:15:18 PM

yeah, know, it's hard not to try.

but ive given up though.

i've realized that trying to debate science with kooksaw is like trying to teach a chimpanzee how to calculate percentages.

i mean, if it was a clever chimp, and you really really worked hard with it, you might make some progress over time.

but at what cost, and would it even really be worth it?




[Edited on October 15, 2007 at 9:00 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2007 8:59:04 PM

Quote :

"I was under the impression that data collected today could be input to current climate models that could accurately extrapolate data from the past."

I'm going to pretend that you weren't serious about that. I'm going to pretend that you aren't suggesting that legitimate scientific inquiry and research is based upon fake numbers.

Quote :

"The hilarious part is that all the sources hooksaw's been citing take anthropogenic climate change as a given, and are only arguing over whether or not Gore exaggerates it. "

So, despite the fact that your claim is absolutely 100% false, I guess it is OK for Gore to lie about the facts, right? I mean, overall, what he's saying is true, right? I mean, it is normal to have to lie to get across the truth, right? Just like the case for Iraq, right?

10/15/2007 9:22:45 PM

Quote :

"The hilarious part is that all the sources hooksaw's been citing take anthropogenic climate change as a given, and are only arguing over whether or not Gore exaggerates it. "

not only that, half of the people he quotes actually praise parts of the film

10/15/2007 9:24:37 PM

Looks like Boone-Tard, joe_shithead, and the boys have a full-blown left-wing circle jerk a flappin'. Yee-hah!

10/16/2007 12:52:52 AM

you get off on gaying up threads dont you? where do you find this stuff anyhow? that from your own personal porn stash?

oh, well, whatever. its your thread. fap away.

10/16/2007 1:37:50 AM

^

10/16/2007 1:40:55 AM

skeet

skeet

skeet




[Edited on October 16, 2007 at 3:26 AM. Reason : ]

10/16/2007 3:25:34 AM

You haven't actually responded to Boone's point, which is a valid one.

10/16/2007 7:42:54 AM

he's too busy showing us his favorite pictures.

10/16/2007 1:48:43 PM

I realize that the thread title is referring to Gore, but why do you guys keep trying to reintroduce Gore into the conversation? Yes, he flies in a private jet. Yes, he has a big house. No one really cares, though, and it's not at all relevant to the meat of the debate here. The vast majority of this thread is over anthropogenic climate change, and it seems Gore's name is only mentioned when someone desperately needs to utilize a red herring.


And I'm still wondering if hooksaw really jumped the fence? If he's for real we need to get him a copy of the liberal conspiracy handbook.

[Edited on October 16, 2007 at 4:43 PM. Reason : .]

10/16/2007 4:37:41 PM

Quote :

"I wasn't aware that anything in the film's been shown to be false"

Quote :

"there's nothing anywhere near "100% absolutely false" in the movie"

10/16/2007 4:42:36 PM

Yeah, I edited that out after posting, because I realized you guys would pounce on it without addressing anything else.

But if you must, cite some examples.

10/16/2007 4:44:16 PM

Why do we keep bringing up Gore? Because he is the poster boy of the movement now. He's one of the most visible proponents, and, quite frankly, he is a big fat liar. He absolutely stands to gain monetarily from people believing his message, yet he slams others who he claims are attacking him because they stand to gain monetarily from people ignoring him, without a single shred of evidence to make such a claim. We bring up Gore because his LIES are one of the main reasons that this is even an issue in the US, and we bring him up because he has all but admitted to lying. And then, while he preaches on and on about how bad CO2 is and how we all need to go out of our way to reduce our CO2 emissions, he is using 10 times the electricity of the average american and goes out flying on CO2 spewing jets.

I don't know about you, but I'd say it's extremely valid to bring up his hypocrisy in this venue, since he has been so important in bringing the issue to the forefront...

10/16/2007 6:34:45 PM

Quote :

"I don't know about you, but I'd say it's extremely valid easy to bring up his hypocrisy in this venue"

10/16/2007 6:44:44 PM

if by "easy" you mean "absolutely fitting," then sure

10/16/2007 6:46:55 PM

If by "absolutely fitting" you mean "strawman," then sure.

What world do you live in where anything supporting climate change is an outright "LIE?" I'll give you intellectually dishonest, but could you cite some examples of lies, please?

Quote :

"I don't know about you, but I'd say it's extremely valid to bring up his hypocrisy in this venue, since he has been so important in bringing the issue to the forefront..."

So in other words, red herring. What relevance does the messenger have to do with anything?

[Edited on October 16, 2007 at 9:33 PM. Reason : .]

10/16/2007 9:25:40 PM

how fitting that you used the word "strawman," since that's what you just did...

and, to address your question about the lovable herring, I must say go reread my the post before my previous one. it addresses that directly. though, I must admit, I would think it would be closer to ad hominem than herring, but i digress..

10/16/2007 10:17:03 PM

Quote :

"I realize that the thread title is referring to Gore, but why do you guys keep trying to reintroduce Gore into the conversation?"

boonedoggle

WTF?

[Edited on October 16, 2007 at 11:22 PM. Reason : .]

10/16/2007 11:21:59 PM

It's both, but the ad hominem is a red herring.

The discussion can go for pages over climate change, and then all of a sudden hooksaw or aaronburro jump in with "OMG GORE!!!" As if his actions have any relevance whatsoever to climate change, or even the validity of his movie.

10/17/2007 4:43:57 PM

is this thread about red herrings and ad hominems and strawmen? i thought it was about climate change...but i guess if you don't know anything about that...

10/17/2007 5:51:11 PM

^ red herring

10/17/2007 6:04:15 PM

you guys know your irrelevant debate terms...now if only you knew shit about climate change

10/17/2007 6:57:58 PM

No one knows shit here, including you, so we're all on equal ground it seems.

10/17/2007 6:59:49 PM

Quote :

"It's both, but the ad hominem is a red herring."

gotcha

10/17/2007 8:06:24 PM

^^by that logic you don't know shit about electrical engineering

10/17/2007 8:10:06 PM

Take it to the argue thread you dipshit. This is not the place where you post like you know me.

10/17/2007 9:06:08 PM

why dont you go do some more fag aerobics loser or maybe its about time for another alias

10/17/2007 9:14:52 PM

RFK Jr. looking like the socialist buffoon that he is while debating--sort of--John Stossel on the global warming issue.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1Ezn8zEdMzU

10/20/2007 5:15:49 AM

why does he sound so scared in the first minute

10/20/2007 5:55:02 AM

fuck RFK Jr

if he can't even support wind power at where he lives, I could give a shit about what he thinks

10/20/2007 2:55:10 PM

hey, it might hurt bats, ok?

10/20/2007 8:38:47 PM

I think the wind farms WRT RFK were over the water, IIRC, I don't know how frequently bats fly over the ocean.

10/20/2007 11:28:59 PM

I think the greatest decision I ever made was to get out of the global warming debate. No fucking point to it. Everyone's either bitching about corporate-bought scientists or Al Gore's fear-mongering documentary. All I can say is...

STOP FUCKING TALKING ABOUT IT!!!

We've got enough incentives to reduce pollution right now. Forget global warming. Better, cleaner, renewable energy will reduce smog, energy dependency overseas, and reduce environmental degredation to the land, air, and water. It's a win for everyone. So stop bullshitting each other about whether Florida's going to be under water in 50 years or 5000 years.


Finally... I've fucking had it with this same tired bullshit rhetoric:

Quote :

""It's both, but the ad hominem is a red herring.""

Quote :

"and, to address your question about the lovable herring, I must say go reread my the post before my previous one. it addresses that directly. though, I must admit, I would think it would be closer to ad hominem than herring, but i digress.."

Quote :

"If by "absolutely fitting" you mean "strawman," then sure."

Really? All of the arguing in these threads boils down to red herring, ad hominems, and strawmans?!




Nah... I think this guy has it right:

Quote :

"You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean."

[Edited on October 21, 2007 at 2:35 PM. Reason : End this fucking useless thread ]

10/21/2007 2:27:00 PM

^

Quote :

"I think the greatest decision I ever made was to get out of the global warming debate."

And yet, here you are--I can't quit you, An Inconvenient Truth thread.

10/21/2007 10:00:30 PM

Quote :

"And yet, here you are"

Now you're being a fucking prick. I didn't post anything for or against Al Gore, global warming, or An Inconvenient, or the politics surrounding it. Let me reitterate the one point I was trying to make:

Quote :

"STOP FUCKING TALKING ABOUT IT!!!"

Now shut the fuck up you goddamn cock monkey...

10/22/2007 12:14:07 AM

^ Fuck you--GTFO of this thread and don't come back.

10/22/2007 12:44:04 AM

In reference to the NY Times reference

William J. Broad is a reporter and has no education which credential him to pass judgment on the validity of scientific studies.

The professor he notes in the article is one of the only scientists that have come out to oppose global warming. Funny he has to go all the way to AUSTRALIA to find someone, who turns out to be a partisan, and a Marine Geologist, which has very little use other than in the field of energy exploration. Some selected items of interest:

Quote :

""A March 2007 article in the Sydney Morning Herald noted that "Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community." [2]" "Carter is a member of the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs [5], and a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, an organisation set up by the Institute of Public Affairs." "the Institute of Public Affairs, of which he is a member, is funded by energy companies" "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter


[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 1:02 AM. Reason : .]

10/22/2007 12:57:27 AM

^ Um. . .how many people on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are not climate scientists? How many are not scientists at all?

And everyone should watch this 20/20 clip. What some left-wing alarmists are doing to children is unforgivable. I mean, these poor children have been led to believe that they--and the polar bears--are going to drown, goddammit!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_FI0U5JOtoo

[Edited on October 22, 2007 at 4:15 AM. Reason : .]

10/22/2007 4:02:23 AM

Quote :

"^ Fuck you--GTFO of this thread and don't come back."

I did leave, but you had to make a smartass remark, so don't blame me for cock-slapping you for it.

The entire debate is pointless. The fact that this thread has gone on for 34 pages is all the proof I need. The same bullshit just gets recycled over and over again. "Al Gore is a liar! The scientists are bought and paid for by energy companies! Florida is going to be underwater in 50 years! The polar bears are drowning! For fuck sake! Think of of the motherfucking polar bears!!!!"

Yes, you're right that the left-wing alarmists are overstating the strength of the evidence and the scope of the consequences. Yes, the right-wingers are batshit crazy to think that there is "no problem whatsoever." Meanwhile the people in the middle just don't care anymore.

That includes me.

Let's make progress on renewable energy, on reducing emissions, on improving efficiency, and on reducing consumption for reasons with which any sane rational person would agree.

1) Cleaner air

2) Less environmental degredation due to extracting the fuel

3) Energy independence

4) Long-term energy security (think of the children!)

5) Saving $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


So yes, please spare me the mind-numbing rhetoric. I don't want to hear about the latest climate models. I don't want to hear why our temperature figures are inaccurate. I don't want to hear why Al Gore should or should not have won the Nobel Prize. I don't FUCKING want to hear about why all liberal celebrities are FUCKING hypocrites....


I want everyone to realize that these ^ goals are rational, economical, and practical, and we don't need to use global warming as a rational in order to do it.

10/22/2007 6:51:41 PM

problem is by in large what passes for your 1-4 is either not physically practical or is not cheap. So we actually do need the scare-tactic put forth by Gore to bully society out of otherwise sensible activities like burning fossil fuels. Set aside the hype, electricity and gasoline are the main reasons that we enjoy the quality of life that we do. To simply put restrictions on them for the sake of a hypothetical would be disregarded immediately if the public has not been sufficiently brainwashed to ignore the pros of fossil fuels. It is of critical importance that the public be misled in the interests of "doing things we should be doing anyway" ( Gore, apparently speaking of increasing government control of everything ).

All of this said we should use Nuclear power for electricity and abandon our outdated coal reliance.

Set aside all the discussion of the sky falling, the question remains "what are we going to do about it". Turning of your lights and not driving a Hummer misses the point completely, we need proactive measures to meet the needs of humanity. It is not reasonable to assume that people will change their behaviour w/o force, I'd rather the government not being applying force on the basis of hypothetical eco-threats, it is so vague it opens the door to blanket theft of land by the government for purported enviromental reasons. For example, the "wetland" concept has been used to wrestle large pieces of land away from private citizens in various places, not for a road or anything to benefit society in a meaningful day-day basis. Rather to make certain tree huggers get warm fuzzies about us protecting mother Gai.

10/22/2007 10:44:09 PM

Because humans are the only creatures on the planet. Sadly, I think it is unfathomable for you to grasp the tiniest facet of how much of a narcissistic, apathetic jackass you are.

10/22/2007 11:28:43 PM

^^ LOL! PWNT! GG, mathman.

10/22/2007 11:36:42 PM

^^its quality dialogue like this that give your argument merit

10/23/2007 12:27:06 AM