Al Gore Confused on the Meaning of Consensus

  4 Responses to “Al Gore Confused on the Meaning of Consensus”

1. 

   no2liberals says:

   8/30/2007 at 10:03 am

   The Prophet Algoreia, and his Big Green Scare Machine, will use whatever methods necessary, to convert as many as possible to their new religion, Anthropogenic Climate Change.
   The Father of the Science of Modern Climatology, Professor Reid Bryson, has more than a few things to say, yet he isn’t part of the “consensus,” and yet, he is a member of the UN Global 500 Honor Roll.

   “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”
   ————————–
   Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for current headlines. “What do they find when the ice sheets retreat, in the Alps?”
   (snip)
   “A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the snow never went,” he says. “There used to be less ice than now. It’s just getting back to normal.”
   ———————————————
   Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

   A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

   Then there is Professor Bob Giegengack, who has taught for fifty years, and founded the University of Pennsylvania Environmental Studies program. He voted for algore in 2000, and says he probably would again, but when it comes to the Big Green Scare Machine, he refers to algore as “a Greenhouse Gasbag.”

   So Giegengack tells his students they might want to consider that “natural” climatic temperature cycles control carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around. That’s the crux of his argument with Gore’s view of global warming — he says carbon dioxide doesn’t control global temperature, and certainly not in a direct, linear way.

   Then there is a source for scientific data, for those who are more interested in factual data, than emotion, on this issue.

   The greenhouse gas carbon dioxide has been up to 18 times higher in the distant past also, due to no fault of mankind. The question is are we being destroyed by greenhouse gases, or being saved, or is there no affect on nature’s course? Keep an open mind.

   The amount of two greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and methane, closely follow the above temperature schematic: the gases rise during the warm spells and drop during the cold spells. Rising greenhouse gases should be expected right now.

   During the late Ordovician Period, 475,000,000 years ago, carbon dioxide levels were 12 times higher than today, but global temperatures were 10 degrees C colder than today.

   It’s also important to keep in mind, that the IPCC report on climate change isn’t written by scientist, they only reviewed pages of the analysis, bureaucrats from the UN wrote the report itself, and we all know how trustworthy they are.
   Further, I don’t care for alarmist, or people that panic. When I hear someone cry Wolf, I want to see for myself, before I take action, it just might be a Chihuahua, amplified to Wolf status by a panicky or opportunistic individual. Like algore and his friends, cashing in on the carbon credit scheme.

   Reply
2. 

   no2liberals says:

   8/30/2007 at 10:13 am

   Further reading on this subject:
   They call this a consensus? A series.

   My series set out to profile the dissenters — those who deny that the science is settled on climate change — and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world’s premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop — the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.

   Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists — the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects — and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position.

   Reply
3. 

   Marc says:

   8/30/2007 at 12:15 pm

   I agree algore is an opportunist thru and thru as any good skilled politician is..hardly a shocker there. He is just being a good liberal telling the unwashed masses whats best for them, he knows best and elect my party so we can continue to take care of you from cradle to grave please…they so want to micro manage every single aspect of our lives until we are boxed in a rat cage to regulated to move.

   Look around today at all the regulation we have in our lives, 200 years ago people would have thought you mad if you told them how life would be. true freedom is an illusion unless you live on an island in the middle of nowhere. now granted the “right” is not much different, they want to control us all too, maybe differently but end result about the same. still monkeys dancing to their tune. anyway I digress. I think that 6.6 billion people on this planet do make an impact of some sort. 6.6 billion of anything makes and impact on whatever organism they exist on.

   and like most things in life I think the truth lies in the middle. people are not the sole cause of this, but also to think we have nothing to do with it seems a little naive to me. my fondest dream is that one day humans decide to live on this planet with the notion that it will not always be the way it is today. lets start to look at other energy besides fossil, it will run out on day. maybe not in our life, but it will run out..future generations will look back and say hey why did they not not switch over sooner? we should only be using fossil fuels for the most necessary of purposes. cars, homes, etc should be powered by some other means. I don’t have the answers, and no one really does or we would be doing it.

   Its good we are starting to talk, but now its time for action. and yes it will be hard like all things we don’t want to do.

   Reply
4. 

   no2liberals says:

   8/30/2007 at 4:06 pm

   Marc, what I find most interesting, during the past few years of endless blathering is, that while the nations that signed onto Kyoto are not only struggling to meet it’s requirements, some have even admitted it isn’t possible. Yet, the U.S., a non-signer to Kyoto, has shown steady progress in reducing the greenhouse gases that so many are convinced that man is producing, and causing climate change. To what effect? Is the Maunder Minimum Effect being reduced because of our reduction of CO2?

   I’m being rhetorical, of course it isn’t, and the polar ice caps on Mars are melting, because of the Sun, and not man-made causes. Further, there is historical evidence taken from data on the Nile River, that indicate the Sun is the greatest source for heating on Earth.

   We have been given alarming messages about the fate of our planet, for as long as I can remember, and they’ve been false, such as overpopulation would cause a global disaster by now, or that a new ice age was imminent, which was followed shortly by the current message from the alarmist.

   I do agree that we need not be wasteful of the resources we have, and practice good stewardship of our planet. When I hear a sleazy alarmist like algore, who uses twenty two times as much energy in his home, as the average American home, I immediately reach to make certain my wallet is safe.

   Reply