An Inconvenient Truth
Last night I had the opportunity to see an early showing of An Inconvenient Truth, the new documentary featuring Al Gore’s global warming presentation.
It’s a remarkable, deeply powerful film.
Gore’s performance – and ability to translate complex scientific issues of the climate crisis – is nothing short of masterful. He’s engaging, precise and genuinely funny. Most importantly, Gore makes an urgent and devastating case that humans are contributing to the warming of the earth’s atmosphere and that we must act now to stop it.
How overwhelming is the scientific consensus? A University of California at San Diego scientist, Dr. Naomi Oreskes, published a massive study of every peer-reviewed scientific journal on global warming over the last decade. Out of 928 randomly selected articles, not one disagreed with the consensus view of global warming. Again, not one.
But the industry effort to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact"* continues – much like the tobacco industry’s earlier disinformation campaign to obscure the health effects of smoking. Just yesterday, Rupert Murdock's NY Post said this in their review:
There is wide disagreement about whether humans are causing global warming.…. and about whether we should be worried about the trends.
There really is no legitimate scientific disagreement -- only an industry funded effort to dilute the urgency of one of the greatest challenges we've ever faced.
In a way, ExxonMobil’s new multi-million dollar campaign (through the industry-backed Competitive Enterprise Institute) is a testament to how convincing and overwhelming Gore’s case really is. Here's an example of what I'm talking about: a heartwarming :60 second spot funded by the oil and gas industry that, in part, touts the benefits -- yes, you read that correctly -- the benefits of carbon dioxide. It's shameful. Dishonest. And as Gore said in the film, deeply unethical and irresponsible.
People should see this film. If you have an in-law or neighbor who’s a Michael Crichton fan, especially bring ‘em along. The film succeeds on many levels, and not only does Gore shine, but the film itself hits just the right note.
Sure, I may be the target audience. I grew up in Memphis, and decided to dedicate my professional life to electoral politics for two main reasons: fighting for the civil rights of those denied fair housing and employment and the desire to protect the natural environment I came to love as a kid spending summers on the Ocoee River (in eastern Tennessee). But watching An Inconvenient Truth made me want to be a better organizer -- and it was inspiring.
One of the strengths of An Inconvenient Truth is that despite how truly terrifying the plausible scenarios laid out in the film are, Gore engages the audience and makes clear that we have the power -- and the moral obligation -- to do something about global warming.
There’s time to reverse course, and there are meaningful thing each of can do to make a difference. Just a few: I'd be remiss if I didn't plug the Sierra Club's resource page on global warming where you can learn more about climate change. You can get an energy audit of your home. Buy local. Drive less, purchase a hybrid if you can. Support an environmental group. Vote with your dollars. Take political action.
And don't ever let anyone tell you there is legitimate scientific disagreement about global warming. The only real question is our ability to act and meet this unprecedented challenge.
*actual quote from industry PR strategy memo.
|
June 2, 2006 |
Charlie Burr | Comments (144 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: MRB | Jun 2, 2006 9:43:12 PM
Great job of changing the subject (prop up the strawman) gotta love irony. When lacking true arguments and discussion techniques change the subject.
A true discussion of causes of global warming (and you'd have to be clueless to consider that it isn't happening) must consider man-made additions to it. Man probably cannot stop all activities that add to it but to not even try would be indicative of man's inability to perceive his influence on the planet. Man must prove whether he is a complement to the planet or an infestation.
Posted by: sasha | Jun 2, 2006 11:06:22 PM
Please spare us the cheerleading.
The globe is either cooling or warming at any given time in geologic history. The Pacific Northwest was covered in glaciers a few tens of thousands of years ago. They melted, and a huge ice dam broke that that moved titanic sized boulders from northern Washington to the Willamette Valley as if they were grains of sand.
Was that warming caused by human behavior? Was the cooling that happened between 1100 AD and 1800 AD caused by humans? Nope.
Did you know the global temp was higher in 1100 AD than it is today? Does Al Gore know this? If not, why? Could it be because he is a propagandist like Michael Moore rather than a truthteller?
Charlie, you are either the most gullible son of a gun I've ever run into or you are a propagandist yourself.
Is the glove warming? Sure. At least I hope so. Because if it is cooling we are in freaking trouble.
Posted by: lw | Jun 2, 2006 11:47:40 PM
Charlie, lets assume the earth is warming due to natural earth temp. cycling. Can it be solidly proven that it isn't due to natural causes? Then if one can prove that the "contended warming" is due to both natural and manmade causes, can it be proven to what percentage is mankind caused? Then can it be proven how much mankind can affect the assumed warming if we are in a natural earth warming cycle and we are contributing to it? I wonder how much we can help when we can't control the sun's variable energy output, the earth's tilt angle, earth's variable distances from the sun, etc. I'm not quite ready to try using atomic bombs to maybe slightly affecting the above.
Posted by: JonW | Jun 3, 2006 12:12:52 AM
I notice there's an unusually conservative ratio (for Blue Oregon) in these first three posts. A more cynical-minder blogger might draw some conclusions about the type of person likely to sitting at their computer on a Friday night...
Of course, I fall in that category as well so moving on:
Sasha,
Please spare us the psuedo-science.
Companies have spent millions to find these minor, unrelated temperature stats and they throw them up against the findings of basically the entire global scientific community. Everybody knows that there's always been climate change - what's unprecedented is the mechanism that human activity is causing it. As you pointed out, natural climate change takes many centuries or millenia, not a couple of decades as we are experiencing now.
Stats like the ones you mention gain traction because they're simple to understand and easy to rattle off, whereas people who spend their lives studying glaciers and polar magnetism don't tend to speak in sound bites.
What it comes down to is that I'd rather get my information on global warming from a geoclimatologist than from some guy at a conservative think tank with a farmer's almanac.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 3, 2006 12:46:52 AM
I notice there's an unusually conservative ratio (for Blue Oregon) in these first three posts. A more cynical-minder blogger might draw some conclusions about the type of person likely to sitting at their computer on a Friday night...
Not only that, but most of the Dems are here in Eugene at the state convention. More later from me, but Howard Dean gave a heckuva speech. (And not a George Bush "heckuva" either.)
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 3, 2006 12:48:28 AM
To all the global-warming deniers out there... Please name one single, solitary scientist that argues definitively that man-made global warming doesn't exist. Industry-funded scientists don't count.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Jun 3, 2006 1:15:23 AM
Is the glove warming? Sure. At least I hope so.
Sasha, I've smelled the glove -- and it is indeed warming.
So is the earth's climate -- and it's way beyond the range of anything in nature's cycle. If you look at the 21 hottest years ever measured in human history, 20 have been in the last 25 years. Last year was the hottest on record -- which leads to stronger storms, extinction rates 1000X the natural average, weird weather and much, much more.
global temp was higher in 1100 AD than it is today
No, this is incorrect. Temperatures right now are unparalleled -- much higher than they were in 1100 AD. And there's really no meaningful scientific dispute over the correlation between climate temperature and CO2 concentration.
Sasha, "Gotta," MRB-- I'd encourage you guys to go see the movie if you capable of not talking through it or annoying everyone around you. Seriously. I don't think you're going to convince anyone here that the earth is flat, smoking's not addictive, or humans aren't heating the earth's atmosphere. The best thing you guys could do for your political party -- and the debate as a whole -- is to argue you guys, not just a handful of the Dems, have the most effective, lasting solution to addressing this man-made climate crisis. Pledging to support a reduction in CO2 and then abandoning that pledge within weeks of being elected doesn't count though.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Jun 3, 2006 3:24:38 AM
It seems to me there are four ways that biological populations are controlled:
1) Predation, whether territorial within the species or external;
2) The food supply is consumed leading to a collapse in the population;
3) Overcrowding leads to transmittals of disease;
4) The toxcity of its own waste (think yeast cultures);
The real question seems to be whether human beings are going to be able to figure out how to avoid biological destiny.
Anyone who is convinced by science has long since made up their minds and those that haven't are going to need more than the authority of the scientific community to convince them. A movie with Al Gore as the central figure is almost by definition preaching to the choir. If it mobilizes people to action, great. But it is not going to bring many new converts.
Posted by: James Caird | Jun 3, 2006 6:22:40 AM
Questions a frog asks as the water slowly boils.
Can it be solidly proven that it isn't due to natural causes? Then if one can prove that the "contended warming" is due to both natural and manmade causes, can it be proven to what percentage is mankind caused? Then can it be proven how much mankind can affect the assumed warming if we are in a natural earth warming cycle and we are contributing to it? I wonder how much we can help when we can't control the sun's variable energy output, the earth's tilt angle, earth's variable distances from the sun, etc. I'm not quite ready to try using atomic bombs to maybe slightly affecting the above.
Posted by: LMAO | Jun 3, 2006 6:38:26 AM
Sasha and LW:
Thank you for a reasoned defense of sanity.
Of course the Earth is warming: it has been warming since the LAST ICE AGE ended! Are we contributing to this process? Possibly. Can we hope to slow global warming by living in the dark, without heat, and banning the devil automobile? Probably not: not unless you start capping volcanoes first.
Until then, good progressives should quit feeling SO REMORSEFUL every time they turn on the furnace, drive a car, or fly in a jet. Take solace in the fact it's those other people (the carbon HOGS) who don't CARE as much as you do...they're the ones making the planet a warmer place. Don't blame yourselves; blame Exxon!
Posted by: Buckman Res | Jun 3, 2006 9:03:44 AM
From the Department of Critical Thinking:
As the saying goes,”consider the source.”
Al Gore is a potential Democratic Presidential candidate (remember, it’s not his
choice!) who needs to keep his name before the public in order to generate the $$ it will take to challenge Hillary.
This movie, a perfect example of Docu-ganda, does exactly that. It presents Gore as the wise sage, the leader who was robbed of the presidency he so rightly deserved, now returned to enlighten the masses to a problem that could doom humanity. How could we not want such a man as president?
This film is less a balanced argument about climate change and more an extended campaign commercial presented on the big screen.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Jun 3, 2006 9:12:07 AM
Mao--
Rush Limbaugh junk science aside, volcanoes are not what is causing global warming or the massive amounts of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. Again, there's no meaningful scientific disagreement that the earth climate is getting much warmer than anything experienced in nature's cycle and that humans are causing this to happen.
living in the dark, without heat, and banning the devil automobile...
With all the interest this post has generated in the troll-American community, I was wondering when someone was going to imply that addressing our climate crisis was going to wreck our economy. The astute reader will note that I did not in fact advocate "living in the dark, without heat, and banning the devil automobile."
We can create good jobs with new clean technologies -- there are real opportunities out there for businesses who improve their efficiency and environmental performance. General Electic -- no bastion of leftism there -- gets this. And not making changes has costs too: look at how Ford and GM are falling behind, while Toyota and Honda profit by making the cars people want.
We can't even sell our cars in China right now -- because our fuel standards are too low for that lucrative emerging market.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Jun 3, 2006 9:14:52 AM
Buckman Res--
So, you've seen the movie?
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 3, 2006 9:39:01 AM
buckman--it's not like Gore just now realized the planet was warming. He's been a forceful advocate for environmental change since he was a Senator. You just MIGHT be mistaking crass opportunism for expert knowledge importantly shared.
Is he piggybacking his Nixonian return to prominence on the movie? Most likely. That's not exactly a strong rebuttal for the evidence presented in the movie though, is it?
This is the West. Even many Republicans get it here: protecting the environment isn't a hippie liberal flight of fancy; it's a moral imperative.
Posted by: LMAO | Jun 3, 2006 9:55:33 AM
Charlie:
You don't really believe the Earth First crowd are looking for incremental reductions in Co2? They would prefer to ban human procreation together with the automobile, but they're trying not to get too far in front of their liberal stooges. They know that if they didn't have their Democratic apologists ("it will be good for the economy"), then the whole house of cards will collapse.
Explain to me again why the Kyoto Treaty would have exempted China from the same regulations placed on the U.S.?
Do Co2 emissions respect national borders? Are they less harmful if they come from developing nations?
If you're going to argue the "global calamity" rationale, then shouldn't every nation be subject to the same rules?
Posted by: Ross Williams | Jun 3, 2006 10:14:20 AM
shouldn't every nation be subject to the same rules?
Perhaps, but it ought to be clear that the United States will not agree to that since it would destroy our economy to have the same standards of emissions per capita as the rest of the world. Kyota recognizes the reality that we are not all equal and any standard that tried to take us there immediately is a non-starter.
The truth is that the argument that there isn't a problem is largely based on opposition to all the likely solutions. i.e we don't want to do anything about the problem so we will claim it doesn't exist. If there isn't a global warming problem, as you seemed to argue above, then no standards are needed whether equal or not.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 3, 2006 10:40:46 AM
I guess I'm going to have to repeat myself:
To all the global-warming deniers out there... Please name one single, solitary scientist that argues definitively that man-made global warming doesn't exist. Industry-funded scientists don't count.
Posted by: LMAO | Jun 3, 2006 11:32:39 AM
As James Schlesinger noted in a Washington Post article (see “Climate Change: The Science Isn’t Settled,” reprinted in the August 2003 issue of Environment & Climate News), “Despite the certainty many seem to feel about the causes, effects, and extent of climate change, we are in fact making only slow progress in our understanding of the underlying science.”
A petition (referenced here) compiled by a past president of the National Academy of Sciences has attracted the signatures of more than 17,000 scientists. All agree the science of climate change, and man’s role in it, is uncertain. Fully 89 percent of respondents to a survey of state climatologists agreed that “current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused only by man-made factors.”
Same rules doesn't mean "per capita". Any limitation based on population is going to favor China/India/Indonesia because they have huge populations relative to their GDP.
Instead, any reasonable limit would be based on a Co2 output per currency weighted basket of GDP.
Clearly, those countries with greater industrial output will consume more resources (all else being equal). The most productive countries shouldn't be punished for growing more of the world's commodities, goods, etc.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Jun 3, 2006 11:57:58 AM
And once again, just for the hell of it: Industry-funded scientists don't count.
Which would kinda rule out non-scientist George W. Bush appointee, James Schlesinger, who among other things, serves on the board of Peabody Coal, the largest independent coal company in the world.
And -- I'm just going out on a limb here -- the organization you link to, the Heartland Instute, doesn't really fall into the not "industry-funded" category judging from this statement on their website:
After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors....
Hmmm... maybe those generous global warming "skeptic" donors are just being modest....
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Jun 3, 2006 12:08:07 PM
Also, as I originally wrote:
But the industry effort to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact"* continues – much like the tobacco industry’s earlier disinformation campaign to obscure the health effects of smoking.
Don't forget to also visit the "Smoker's Lounge" section of the Heartland Institute. So I guess I kind of take back my assumption that this pseudo-science enclave was solely funded by the oil, gas and coal industries..
Posted by: Ben Dover | Jun 3, 2006 1:11:48 PM
So, if we radically change our lifestyles to help prevent the increase in global warming and Earth still continues to get hotter, then what do we do?
Also, has anyone bothered to think what the overpopulation of this planet has contributed to global warming during the past century? How many children have YOU created?
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 3, 2006 1:32:39 PM
I wouldn't call 5-10 MPG in CAFE fleet standards a radical change in lifestyle, but it's just the first of a million little things that will be a perfect start while we engineer our way out of the crisis.
It's like some of you WANT to hurtle headlong into the abyss!
Posted by: Head in the Sand and Happy | Jun 3, 2006 3:10:51 PM
So global warming is caused by humans burning fossil fuel.
We're running out of fossil fuels and won't have any more to burn in a couple of centuries or so.
So what's the problem?
Open me a beer, Edith.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Jun 3, 2006 3:19:05 PM
The only radical change needed is among the various corporatists running the world.
GM currently markets a non hybrid vehicle in Europe under the Opel trademark that gets 60+ mpg.
My hybrid Honda sedan gets an honest 49 mpg highway.
Lexus will have an SUV/hybrid out in the next couple of months that gets 15% to 20% better mileage, has more power than the same vehicle without electric assist and goes from 0-60 in less than six seconds for those that worry about under-performance issues.
MIT has just come out with the holy grail of the lightweight super battery (though it will still be pretty expensive until production is ramped up).
Current hybrids are being modified aftermarket with additional batteries and the ability to plug in at night when electricity consumption is off peak. These cars can get over 100mpg with existing tech.
Add in the whole biofuel effort, and we have turnkey tech ready to use. There is no conversion cost, only inertia.
If we defunded the billions in subsidies that go to oil firms currently making record profits, and spent that money on alternative fuels and tech, the average consumer wouldn't be negatively impacted at all.
Most of the current administration would need to do some portfolio shuffling and would no longer be able to drive energy scarcity by disrupting oil flow through invasion.
Notice how the Iraqi oil output never has come anywhere close to pre-invasion numbers?
The result as all Free Market true believers are aware, is higher prices for consumers.
Posted by: LMAO | Jun 3, 2006 3:31:44 PM
My esteemed Dr. Burr:
17,000 Scientists signed this anti-Kyoto petition, which reads:
,i>We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
You may believe the carbon fuel lobby simply bribed 17,000 shills to publicly humiliate themselves and endanger their reputations. That said, I am willing to submit that a few of them know more about the topic than you and Citizen Gore, and they don't accept "as established science" that humans are responsible for global warming.
IF I'M WRONG (have you ever heard a liberal say that?), and the world is going to steamy hell in petroleum basket, the biofuel/hybrid/ethanol charade is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. They all produce sizable quantities of Co2.
If you really want to reduce carbon and particulate emissions, you ought to all become HUGE NUCLEAR POWER ADVOCATES, and start pushing Congress to actually implement the long term radiocative waste storage protocols.
Posted by: LMAO | Jun 3, 2006 3:46:35 PM
Here's an M.I.T. Professor who thinks Global Warming is a joke.
Professor Richard S. Lindzen (a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability) asserts:
To show why I assert that there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons, I shall briefly review the science associated with those predictions.
Here's his most recent article in the forked tongue paper of record, The Wall Street Journal
Posted by: One single solitary scientist | Jun 3, 2006 3:54:30 PM
Hey Kari: your wait is over!
That's 17,001 scientists who think Global Warming is junk science.
I can give you four more Professors (all tenured!) that are still speaking out, despite the crank calls, harassment, and tauntings from the "tolerance crowd".
Let me know if you would like to set up a debate with one of them: I would pay money to watch you and a PhD in Physics, Mathematics, or Meteorology go mano a mano.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Jun 3, 2006 4:25:43 PM
Same rules doesn't mean "per capita".
Of course it does. You just don't like the idea of the same rules for everybody because it isn't to your advantage. Which was my point.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Jun 3, 2006 4:30:58 PM
Here's an M.I.T. Professor who thinks Global Warming is a joke.
Lindzen makes his living as a paid consultant to various industry groups opposed to restraining the production of greenhouse gases. Far from considering it a joke, he makes his living being the contrarian.
Posted by: im karlock | Jun 3, 2006 4:36:43 PM
JK: Answer this:
What caused the global warming that brought us out of the last ice age? It sure wasn’t automobile exhaust and man ,made CO2?
Why do Greenland ice core samples show that it was up to 5 degrees warmer long ago?
Why do may tree ring records indicate wide variations in climate over the last 5000 years?
What was the last major climate event: AN ICE AGE. What does the earth’s weather do after an ice age? Answer: warm up!
Want to se some other climate change scare stories: http://www.portlanddocs.com/Misc/1950_Ice_Age.pdf
You might want to check out the debate at: http://www.climateaudit.org/
Thanks
JK
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Jun 3, 2006 5:05:16 PM
LMAO:
I just read the hypothesis that you linked to that says the intensity of hurricanes and storms is not increasing. My displaced Katrina relatives will take a lot of comfort in that. Thanks, Cato!
Posted by: sasha | Jun 3, 2006 5:07:48 PM
[Editor-- profane, inappropriate comment about this being a UN plot removed.]
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Jun 3, 2006 5:13:40 PM
IF I'M WRONG (have you ever heard a liberal say that?), and the world is going to steamy hell in petroleum basket, the biofuel/hybrid/ethanol charade is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. They all produce sizable quantities of Co2.
Yes, I've heard a lot of liberals say they're wrong. Can't say I've heard it too much from the Bush administration -- maybe because they're doing such a heckuva job!
But yes, global warming is being caused by man-made increases of CO2 -- and we can implement the technology to do something about it. We've already made huge strides in reducing the ozone hole; we have the tools to reverse course with our climate crisis too -- we just need the will to break with the status quo path.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Jun 3, 2006 5:26:57 PM
LMAO--
Are YOU a scientist now? You are now posting under the screen name "one single solitary scientist" -- with the same IP address.
How can we get ahold of your work?
Posted by: TKrueg | Jun 3, 2006 5:27:42 PM
Unbelievable.
Can we possible deny the the increasing effects of our global population, growing exponentially in the last few decades? There are simple laws of physics you can't deny... whether you call it 'global warming', 'climate change', or 'drastic environmental changes'. More people need more space, they need more things, things get bigger, and on and on. This is going to have an increasing effect on our world, and if you can't wrap your mind around it, you might refrain from opening your mouth. Or voting. Or having babies.
Your selfish fantasy world only prolongs the delay in humanity's response. You can choose to buy into the lobbyists' talking points or just accept the right thing to do isn't always the easiest.
Posted by: Ben Hubbird | Jun 3, 2006 5:31:36 PM
Mao,
Your "petition" is the bastard child of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and is a hoax.
From the SourceWatch wiki:
When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.
Posted by: sasha | Jun 3, 2006 5:50:44 PM
Kari:
OK I took out the swear word.... but why do you characterize what I said as a "UN Plot?" The Kyoto treaty was negotiated at a UN climate conference, and the IPCC is a UN organization, and the Kyoto treaty is precisely what I stated: A global protocol to ration energy consumption.
I know you want to make it appear as if what I wrote was some kind of black helicopter conspiracy. It conveniently allows you to delete what I wrote as if it had no merit. Well, I'll ask you to let the post stand - I've pasted it below - and see what the others think. Sans the swear word.
Post below:
Kari:
So did you get your one single solitary non-energy company scientist?
Now, can you give us a few examples of non-government-funded scientists who believe global warming is happening????
Guess what would happen if a researcher got a government grant to do a study and found that global warming was not a problem or was due to variable solar output? Probably couldn't stay on the government cash wagon.... they ain't gunna keep funding those studies.
So if you think that a scientist funded by an energy company destroys his or her credibility, I say the same about any government funded scientist.
Charlie: yes the globe WAS warmer in 1100 AD than now. There were vineyards in Scotland back then, and Greenland got its name not because it was covered in ice.
Global warming is simply a strategy to create a global rationing protocol for the use of energy, which is precisely what Kyoto treaty puts in place. So we get the UN determining who can consume energy and how much they can consume.
If all you global warming advocates really cared about the environment and not just about controlling productive capacity, you would support CO2 consumption strategies such as planting vegetation rather than solely looking to impose limits on CO2 emmissions. Guess what the delegates said about that at the last UN climate get-together?
They said no way! That wouldn't meet our desired social goals!
Which put the lie to what they are doing. Simply planting enough trees could easily consume as much CO2 as the Kyoto treaty wants the U.S. to limit, but they would not so much as consider that solution.
This is a global scam, and all you dummies are the stooges.
Posted by: Name that Tune | Jun 3, 2006 6:00:52 PM
Actually Ross, Dr. Lindzen makes his living as a Professor at M.I.T.
Like many academics, he also earns consulting fees for work he does in addition to teaching, and publishes articles in professional journals, magazines and newspapers.
He won the LEO Prize for Independent Thinking in 2006
This link is worth reading if you would like to learn how the ALARMISTS are manipulating their data
Posted by: My kingdom for a Porsche | Jun 3, 2006 6:10:04 PM
Chuckie:
Your displaced Katrina relatives are in possession of "anecdotal evidence" and nothing more. A personal tragedy, certainly, but not incontrovertible proof of global warming. The region has experienced deadlier hurricanes both at the turn of the century and in the 30's.
Did you read the story about some portions of the levee system having sunk as much as 3 feet more than the US Army Corps of Engineers had estimated. That made some of the levee "walls" as much as 3 feet shorter than they were engineered in order to function as an effective barrier.
Must have been those Carter political appointees trying to screw up the 2005 Republican Administration that were sure to follow him. Cause we all know natural disasters don't happen without failure at the Presidential level.
Posted by: I link there4 iam | Jun 3, 2006 6:17:08 PM
Kari:
Why would you edit/delete Sasha without doing the same to that drone named Joeb from Maine?
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Jun 3, 2006 6:22:14 PM
Dr. Lindzen does in fact take industry money for his "findings"
Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." [3]... and apparently doesn't believe in the link between smoking and lung cancer either. Quick, someone notify the "not-at-all-industry-funded-as-far-as-we-know" Heartland Institute.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Jun 3, 2006 6:22:57 PM
Actually Ross, Dr. Lindzen makes his living as a Professor at M.I.T.
And, like many professors, he gets his real money from elsewhere. I don't know what MIT professors get paid, but its probably not very much just for being a professor.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Jun 3, 2006 6:25:46 PM
Charlie, yes the globe WAS warmer in 1100 AD than now. There were vineyards in Scotland back then, and Greenland got its name not because it was covered in ice.
No, again, 2005 was warmer than 1100 AD. Also, as most of us learned in grade school, Greenland was named Greenland in order to attract people to move there, not because it was green.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Jun 3, 2006 6:31:24 PM
I link/My porsche/Namethat--
First, Kari didn't delete the post -- there are several editors on this site. If you think I'm trying to "censor" debate here, go back and read the many, many trollerati comments here. But Sasha can make his comments in a more appropriate way.
Second, Joeb's off-topic, copyright infringing comments have been edited, as you can see for yourself in other posts.
Posted by: LMAO | Jun 3, 2006 6:43:27 PM
[Editor-- more off topic conversation about a commenter -- not from this post -- named Joeb.]
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Jun 3, 2006 6:46:58 PM
Chuckie: Your displaced Katrina relatives are in possession of "anecdotal evidence" and nothing more.
Thanks for the compassionate conservatism. Actually, storms are getting stronger. In fact, the strongest hurricane ever measured in human history took place in 2005, Hurricane Wilma.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Jun 3, 2006 7:04:31 PM
[Linzen] won the LEO Prize for Independent Thinking in 2006.
Yes, Linzen did in fact win the Leo Prize -- which is only given to global warming so-called "skeptics."
All that means is that he's the best of the worst. Heckuva prize, Linzie!
Posted by: Buckman Res | Jun 3, 2006 7:16:55 PM
Mr. Burr,
No, I haven’t seen the movie. My prior comments were directed at the politics
involved with the movie’s release, not the premise of the movie. I’ll wait till it comes to the Bagdad where I’ll only have to spend $3 and I can dull Gore’s personality with a couple pints of Terminator (the only way I can take him after the way he helped turn the country over to Bush).
Mr. Dover and TKrueg both bring up the fundamental issue here: too damn many
humans on the planet, who all demand energy and the subsequent burning of fossil fuels. I’ll be interested to see if Gore has the courage to touch on this sensitive
subject.
Posted by: Ed Bickford | Jun 3, 2006 8:42:13 PM
The bitterness and recrimination in which "buckman res" is indulging himself, while understandable is overblown and no excuse for branding former VP Gore's public service to be a self-serving campaign for political rejuvenation. Shame on them, whoever the poster is!
What do you want from Gore? He'd won the election, though by the time the investigation of the Florida debacle was complete we were in the throes of the "War (not) on Terror". Is your problem that he was not a slimy enough lawyer to defeat the Bush crime-syndicate's end-around on the Constitution with the collusion of the Supreme Court? Five and a half years is too long to sit around crying in your beer.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Gotta love IRONY | Jun 2, 2006 9:14:13 PM
Editor-- off topic post deleted.