Has Kristen Uncovered More Inconvenient Truths?

[Andre]

Kristen has struck again

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderg/id13.html

Some comments:

http://newsbusters.org/node/12849

 

[Tsu]

Welcome to Ponder the Maunder, an extra credit assignment for Honors Earth Science, Portland High School, by Kristen Byrnes of Portland Maine.

What? You use HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS as your "experts"?

 

[Pythagorean]

This reminds me of a pro-oil commercial up here for Conico-Phillips. It's played up here in Alaska with all these cute little kids talking about how they want to work in oil and that it impresses the ladies, etc, etc.

They were all kids from the lower 48! (the connected US states), not from Alaska!

 

[Andre]

What? You use HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS as your "experts"?

That's impressive, getting three fallacies in one sentence.

Firstly, the straw man, I never called Kristen expert

Secondly the fallacy of the accident or hasty generalization assuming that competences of any 15 years old kid would exclude judging the merits of the product.

Thirdly, the implicite appeal to authority, suggesting that if the message is not brought by an autority, it can be ignored, no matter how well argued and sustained by evidence.

Recall that Kristen is also member here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1294838#post1294838

There was once a kid in a fairy tale that shouted that the emperor did not wear clothes. He was no autority too. L'histoire se repete

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's impressive, getting three fallacies in one sentence.

Firstly, the straw man, I never called Kristen expert

If she is not an expert then why would you link her work?

Secondly the fallacy of the accident or hasty generalization assuming that competences of any 15 years old kid would exclude judging the merits of the product.

If she is not an expert, then why would you link her work?

Thirdly, the implicite appeal to authority, suggesting that if the message is not brought by an autority, it can be ignored, no matter how well argued and sustained by evidence.

This is an educational forum. We are not interested in links to amateur opinions and evaluations. Kristen is welcome to post her opinions here, but linking to amateur pages has never been appropiate at PF. Are we make an exception for you and your cause alone?

 

[Pythagorean]

Andre, at one time I thought you were a solid skeptic... now I'm beginning to think you're just hard-headed about the subject.

I really don't know what's going on anymore in Global Warming, and one of my current jobs is actually relevant to it (laser scattering off non-spherical particles). I've pretty much lost trust for anyone that thinks they know what's going on.

 

[Andre]

Okay then, let's call in the experts and judge the accuracy of Kristen's assessment.

http://tinyurl.com/2577dq

http://tinyurl.com/ypkeck


be sure to have a pop blocker on for the next one: or let me copy paste, to save you from a deluge of pop ups.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Al Gore, Global warming, Inconvenient Truth
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists

By Tom Harris

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.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

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."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

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."

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlen clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," KarlÈn concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

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."

Karlen explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says KarlÈn

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

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. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

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."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

 

[Andre]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris110706a.htm

Same pop ups, so this is what it says:

Al Gore, Global warming, Inconvenient Truth
A sample of experts' comments about the science of "An Inconvenient Truth"
By Tom Harris, Natural Resources Stewardship Project

Tuesday, November 7, 2006

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, University of Auckland, New Zealand: ”I can assure Mr. Gore that no one from the South Pacific islands have fled to New Zealand because of rising seas. In fact, if Gore consults the data, he will see it shows sea level falling in some parts of the Pacific.”

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden: “We find no alarming sea level rise going on, in the Maldives, Tovalu, Venice, the Persian Gulf and even satellite altimetry if applied properly.”

Dr. Paul Reiter, Professor - Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France, comments on Gore’s belief that Nairobi and Harare were founded just above the mosquito line to avoid malaria and how the mosquitoes are now moving to higher altitudes: “Gore is completely wrong here - malaria has been documented at an altitude 2500 m - Nairobi and Harare are at altitudes of about 1500 m. The new altitudes of malaria are lower than those recorded 100 years ago. None of the “30 so called new diseases” Gore references are attributable to global warming, none.”

See also:
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
The gods must be laughing
Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Manager, Wildlife Research Section, Department of Environment, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada: “Our information is that 7 of 13 populations of polar bears in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (more than half the world’s estimated total) are either stable, or increasing …. Of the three that appear to be declining, only one has been shown to be affected by climate change. No one can say with certainty that climate change has not affected these other populations, but it is also true that we have no information to suggest that it has.”

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: “Mr. Gore suggests that Greenland melt area increased considerably between 1992 and 2005. But 1992 was exceptionally cold in Greenland and the melt area of ice sheet was exceptionally low due to the cooling caused by volcanic dust emitted from Mt. Pinatubo. If, instead of 1992, Gore had chosen for comparison the year 1991, one in which the melt area was 1% higher than in 2005, he would have to conclude that the ice sheet melt area is shrinking and that perhaps a new ice age is just around the corner.”

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California: “The oceans are now heading into one of their periodic phases of cooling. … Modest changes in temperature are not about to wipe them [coral] out. Neither will increased carbon dioxide, which is a fundamental chemical building block that allows coral reefs to exist at all.”

Dr. R. M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia: “Both the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps are thickening. The temperature at the South Pole has declined by more than 1 degree C since 1950. And the area of sea-ice around the continent has increased over the last 20 years.”

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, formerly advisor to the World Meteorological Organization/climatology research scientist at University of Exeter, U.K.: “From data published by the Canadian Ice Service there has been no precipitous drop off in the amount or thickness of the ice cap since 1970 when reliable over-all coverage became available for the Canadian Arctic.”

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, British Colombia, Canada comments on Gore’s belief that the Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) is an “invasive exotic species” that has become a plague due to fewer days of frost: “The MPB is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand.”

 

[Andre]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/5/3/144127.shtml?s=rss

The experts speak, regarding the Kyoto Treaty:

MARLO LEWIS, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Three-quarters of the total expense would fall upon the United States.

TIM BALL, NATURAL RESOURCES STEWARDSHIP PROJECT, PH.D (UNIVERSITY OF LONDON): I think there`s only two countries that are even coming close to meeting their targets.

PATRICK MICHAELS, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA STATE CLIMATOLOGIST: The amount of warming that would be prevented, perhaps, is 7/100 Celsius.

PATRICK MOORE, FORMER DIRECTOR, GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL: It does not include China, India, Brazil, and these countries are all industrializing rapidly.

CHRIS HORNER, AUTHOR, "POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING": Kyoto encourages people to run the hell away from it.

JOHN CHRISTY, PH.D, ALABAMA STATE CLIMATOLOGIST: There are examples of Chinese factories that are being used to buy credits for European countries, so European countries can say, "Well, we can pollute because we`re reducing pollution in China."

BJORN LOMBORG, AUTHOR, "THE SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST`S GUIDE": Kyoto is, at the same time, impossibly ambitious and yet entirely inconsequential when you talk about the environment. It will cost lots of money and end up doing virtually no good. That`s not a good deal.

****
On global warming studies, temperature change, and the possible effects (natural disasters, rising oceans, etc.):

LEWIS: Where [Gore]'s misleading is that he gives the impression that this is something that is likely to happen. The likelihood of this is next to nil.

DAVID LEGATES, PH.D, CLIMATOLOGIST, UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: The IPCC report is that the upper limit of sea level rise by the year 2100 is going to be about 23 inches.

BALL: We now know for certain that the temperature changes before the CO-2. And one of the fundamental assumptions that Gore doesn`t understand is that in the theory of global warming due to humans is, as the CO-2 goes up, the temperature will go up. Well, the ice floe records show it`s exactly the opposite.

GEORGE TAYLOR, CLIMATOLOGIST: Most of the climate change we`ve seen up until now has been as a result of natural variations.

ROY SPENCER, PH.D, FORMER SENIOR CLIMATE SCIENTIST, NASA: Politicians and some of the scientists like to say that there`s a consensus now on global warming or the science has been settled, but you have to ask them, what is there a consensus on? Because it really makes a difference. What are you talking about? The only consensus I`m aware of is that it`s warmed in the last century. They completely ignore the fact that there`s this thing called the Oregon petition that was signed by 19,000 professionals and scientists who don`t agree with the idea that we are causing climate change.

CHRISTY: One of the statements in the SPM was the statement that, if you boil it down, it says we are 90 percent certain that most of the warming in the last 50 years was due to human effects. I don`t agree with that. I think things are much more ambiguous.

MICHAELS: There are two factors that most climatologists think happened that don`t seem to be included in it, which are the little Ice Age, which is a very cold period that ended in the late 19th century, and the medieval warm period, around 1000 or so.

HORNER: Since the third U.N. report, for which this was the smoking gun, there`s been a fourth U.N. report. Does anybody see a hockey stick in there anywhere? I can`t see you. It`s not in there. Guess what? It`s air-brushed out, in classic fashion, and they don`t even mention why it`s not here. What hockey stick? I didn`t see any hockey stick.


On the global warming crowd, and their intimidation tactics:

LEGATES: I think those people are entitled to their views, but in many cases it`s not the scientific consensus.

BALL: Many times I`ve been tempted to say why am I doing this? If I had gone along with the prevailing wisdom, the funding would have been enormous. Instead, I`m accused of getting the money from the oil company, which is simply a lie. I think that the truth is absolutely paramount, and if we abandon that, we`re lost ... The problem with the media is that it`s essentially become a business, and everything`s got to be more sensationalized.

MARTIN EBERHARD, CEO, TESLA MOTORS: I think that anybody whose idea about how to fix the world starts off by, "First, we`re going to change human nature," is doomed.


Beck says he has had countless calls from parents whose kids are being shown "An Inconvenient Truth" in art class of all things, and relays a news story that a hotel in California that wants to be certified as the first "green hotel" has just replaced the traditional in-room Bible with an in-room copy of "An Inconvenient Truth."

"No one wants the Earth to die," Beck concludes. "But it`s what we do about it that`s at question. And let me be clear: The correct decisions will not be made when fueled by frantic alarmism.

"Al Gore`s version of climate change has no longer become science. It`s dogma. And if you question it, you are a heretic.

"For now, all we can do is look for sober solutions in a world drunk on hysteria. The debate is not over. I have a feeling it`s just beginning."

 

[Andre]

Andre, at one time I thought you were a solid skeptic... now I'm beginning to think you're just hard-headed about the subject.

Excellent illustration of:

Al Gore`s version of climate change has no longer become science. It`s dogma. And if you question it, you are a heretic

I really don't know what's going on anymore in Global Warming, and one of my current jobs is actually relevant to it (laser scattering off non-spherical particles). I've pretty much lost trust for anyone that thinks they know what's going on.

Just go https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=169202 and here and note that panical global warming is refuted by the absence of the essential positive feedback and then you can just resume with normal emisivity data. Nothing wrong with that from a climate point of view.

 

[Pythagorean]

Excellent illustration of:Just go https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=169202 and here and note that panical global warming is refuted by the absence of the essential positive feedback and then you can just resume with normal emisivity data. Nothing wrong with that from a climate point of view.

I'm not really concerned with Global Warming; I'm not panicking, and I'm not doing the research to prove anything, I just like the idea of being able to figure out what particles are with long range scanning; it's neat to me. I analyze infrasound signals too for the same reason... long distance information... it's neat!

Global Warming debate? Well, you've about bored my pants off with it. I just don't care anymore, I'm finding little truths, not big ones, at least not until I understand nature a lot better, and I'm not taking anybody's word for it.

I don't know how you see me 'taking Al Gore's side' as it were. I know as much as the next guy that fear is a profitable market, and whether Global Warming is true or not, people are going to play off those fears.

 

[Andre]

Well you choose to enter this thread with some confronting statements. I was merely thinking of doing my duty to warn a hypothetical crowd that the world could be a little different.

using fiction to impose fear is probably the most used mechanism in history to straighten out the crowd and lead them into the next war. That's how a lot of religions work. So, the essential thing is if we allow us Gore to lead us back into the dark ages with devils and dragons or if we allow factual reasoning to guide us.

 

[edward]

using fiction to impose fear is probably the most used mechanism in history to straighten out the crowd and lead them into the next war. That's how a lot of religions work. So, the essential thing is if we allow us Gore to lead us back into the dark ages with devils and dragons or if we allow factual reasoning to guide us.

Whoa there Andre, read that last paragraph. You apparently are obsessed with defeating the global warming supporters.

I'd hardly call advocating the use of clean energy sources "leading us back into the dark ages."

Whether there is global warming or not is irrelevant to the fact that our current energy sources are polluting the entire planet.

 

[Andre]

And there you are terribly wrong. of course there is a problem, we have to somehow get Earth going in the light of the increasing human pressure on the ecology. There is no doubt about it.

BUT ONE MUST NOT USE A LIE TO ACHIEVE THAT.

You can debate about the extent of greenhouse effect, you can fear that it's significant, you can prove that it's not so. But willfully deceiting, exagarating and distortion of the truth as Gore admits he does, may have a short term desired effect but will be disastrous in the long end. When all your actions are driven by the urge to terminate the use of energy. No combustion, no nuclear, in the end you may be happy with a few hours light. And then nature decides to launch another little ice age. How are you going to fight that off?

If we want to convert to a sustainable society we must get rid of the lies, get real, face the real facts and act accordingly. Anti combustion and anti nuclear dogmas are just as likely to ruin what you want to save. We just need reason back and pure science not poisoned by the urge to proof global warming. The longer it takes, the more science has to loose and the longer it takes to restore faith.



living with a lie as the highest dogma is what I see as the new dark ages.

 

[Pythagorean]

Well you choose to enter this thread with some confronting statements. I was merely thinking of doing my duty to warn a hypothetical crowd that the world could be a little different.

I was confronting your hardheadedness; Global Warming just happens to be the subject where you've already picked what you want to be true, and now you're just looking for ways to prove it, digging up whatever you can. Anybody can do that, once they've chosen a conclusion they want to be true.

Does that mean Al Gore is right and you're wrong? No... It just means that I put you in the same boat as him. You come off as a propagandist, which makes your arguments completely ineffective to someone like me. I'm not going to dig up data that suggests that, I'm just "doing my duty" and pointing out that you're emulating skepticism, and not actually being a true skeptic.

 

[Andre]

I was confronting your hardheadedness; Global Warming just happens to be the subject where you've already picked what you want to be true, and now you're just looking for ways to prove it, digging up whatever you can. Anybody can do that, once they've chosen a conclusion they want to be true.

Does that mean Al Gore is right and you're wrong? No... It just means that I put you in the same boat as him. You come off as a propagandist, which makes your arguments completely ineffective to someone like me. I'm not going to dig up data that suggests that, I'm just "doing my duty" and pointing out that you're emulating skepticism, and not actually being a true skeptic.

hey, I offer what I consider refuting evidence, you react with ad hominems. recheck the rules of the game here. What does that make you?

 

[Evo]

Let's not get into a fight.

It's funny, a couple of years ago I believed in AGW. I started doing research on it in order to back up AGW but what I found instead was evidence against the gloom and doom predictions. I no longer believe that human pollution is capable of "significantly" affecting our climate. Significant is the keyword here, it's a no brainer that pollution contributes to greenhouse gasses, but what is not known is what effect it has on climate. Quite honestly, all of what we see could be quite normal and the effects of human pollution so insignificant as to not really have an impact, we do not know.

I have to agree with Andre in his post

And there you are terribly wrong. of course there is a problem, we have to somehow get Earth going in the light of the increasing human pressure on the ecology. There is no doubt about it.

BUT ONE MUST NOT USE A LIE TO ACHIEVE THAT.

You can debate about the extent of greenhouse effect, you can fear that it's significant, you can prove that it's not so. But willfully deceiting, exagarating and distortion of the truth as Gore admits he does, may have a short term desired effect but will be disastrous in the long end. When all your actions are driven by the urge to terminate the use of energy. No combustion, no nuclear, in the end you may be happy with a few hours light. And then nature decides to launch another little ice age. How are you going to fight that off?

If we want to convert to a sustainable society we must get rid of the lies, get real, face the real facts and act accordingly. Anti combustion and anti nuclear dogmas are just as likely to ruin what you want to save. We just need reason back and pure science not poisoned by the urge to proof global warming. The longer it takes, the more science has to loose and the longer it takes to restore faith.



living with a lie as the highest dogma is what I see as the new dark ages.

 

[Pythagorean]

I'm just saying, Mother Teresa did much worse things than Al Gore.

An Inconvenient Truth is something we (climate scientists and scientsts-in-training) joke about at the office. It's not really affecting anyone more than the usual Millennial Fever crowd, and your thread will never touch them anyway.

 

[loseyourname]

What? You use HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS as your "experts"?

I'm not stating an opinion about global warming because I don't know jack about it, but it looks like what Kristen did is publish a compendium of facts and opinions that were either researched or given by experts. Some of the opinions are hers, but not all of them. Don't forget, our very own Physics Forums was also started by a kid as a high school extra credit problem as a place to compile expert advice, and if people had realized he was a high school kid and concluded they had nothing of value to gain from reading our site, that would have been unfortunate indeed.

 

[Andre]

Thanks Evo and L.Y.N. I'm sorry about that. I was a bit overwhelmed about the strong reactions. I still am.

 

[mheslep]

... I'm just "doing my duty" and pointing out that you're emulating skepticism, and not actually being a true skeptic.

Seems to me you are just talking the talk, and not walking the walk. Please do some actual 'pointing out'. Any details at all will do, where is he 'hardheaded', not a true 'skeptic', etc.

 

[Pythagorean]

Seems to me you are just talking the talk, and not walking the walk. Please do some actual 'pointing out'. Any details at all will do, where is he 'hardheaded', not a true 'skeptic', etc.

(disclaimer: I like Andre more than Al Gore. Furthermore, I'm not an intellectual and I don't think you can change people's opinions with pointing out and proof, because then people start arguing about interpretations of data... then they argue about semantics, then throw more proof/data in and argue about interpretation more. I'm a scientist, I do things, I'm not an intellectual/philosopher whatsoever, I like to drink and fly kites and go hiking, not sit around and think intentionally, I'm an animal. I was just stating my opinion)

Anyway, for your sake:

how I arrived at my long-term conclusion:

I come to this forum occasionally every couple months and it's always the same thing coming from Andre. Just look over all posts by Andre, right here on physicsforums for your evidence, he's obsessed with the subject!

what triggered it:

Andre siting a high school girl.Now, I don't deny that this may have been an emotional response to Andre, but that doesn't concern me in the least. I'm often proud of my ad homi-whatevers. Just because I insult somebody doesn't mean I'm wrong. If you refuse to see it, that's fine, don't confuse me with facts. Facts don't mean crap if an idiot is interpreting them.

 

[Skyhunter]

And there you are terribly wrong. of course there is a problem, we have to somehow get Earth going in the light of the increasing human pressure on the ecology. There is no doubt about it.

BUT ONE MUST NOT USE A LIE TO ACHIEVE THAT.

You can debate about the extent of greenhouse effect, you can fear that it's significant, you can prove that it's not so. But willfully deceiting, exagarating and distortion of the truth as Gore admits he does, may have a short term desired effect but will be disastrous in the long end. When all your actions are driven by the urge to terminate the use of energy. No combustion, no nuclear, in the end you may be happy with a few hours light. And then nature decides to launch another little ice age. How are you going to fight that off?

If we want to convert to a sustainable society we must get rid of the lies, get real, face the real facts and act accordingly. Anti combustion and anti nuclear dogmas are just as likely to ruin what you want to save. We just need reason back and pure science not poisoned by the urge to proof global warming. The longer it takes, the more science has to loose and the longer it takes to restore faith.



living with a lie as the highest dogma is what I see as the new dark ages.

Great post Andre... except the subject is WMD and the liar is George W. Bush.

So Gore neglects to explain all of the details of the correlation between the rise in CO₂ and rise in temperature. And then he overlays 2 graphs in a visually stunning yet misleading representation of the data.

Andre... Al Gore is a politician. The movie was not about the science and should not be cited as a scientific source. Politicians are going to exaggerate, the media will hype the science press releases. and and the denialists blogs will continue to spin papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals.

The worlds scientists, are not by and large part of any conspiracy to cast the world into some kind of solar powered fascist vegan society.

Well, at least not the vegan part.

I agree that the scientific community does not know what is going to happen, but unlike you, that frightens me more than Al Gore smoothing a graph to emphasize a correlation between CO₂ and temperature.

From the melting of the Arctic ice cap to the upwelling of CO₂ from the deep oceans, the scientific community's predictions, as opposed to being alarmist, have consistently been far to conservative.

There is always hype in the media.

But when you use a pseudo science blog that cherry picks selected headlines, and then edits them together, and offers it as evidence of scientific doublespeak... well Andre that does tend to lead people to the conclusion that you are... shall we say, more than skeptical.

 

[Pythagorean]

But when you use a pseudo science blog that cherry picks selected headlines, and then edits them together, and offers it as evidence of scientific doublespeak... well Andre that does tend to lead people to the conclusion that you are... shall we say, more than skeptical.

I think his investigative talents would be better used against more harmful policies that ruin lives like the war on drugs, crusading governments, and embezzling evangelists (to name a few).

But a movie? Star Wars has a bigger following than an Inconvenient Truth. It may be creepy, but it's just as harmless as GWA advocates.

Maybe I'm missing something... how does this affect you negatively Andre? I mean, given that politicians and lies aren't uncommon companions.

 

[phoenixy]

Another borrowed piece from Andre, from a high school kid no less. Hope it fairs better than the other ones in the past.

Start maundering

We all know Al Gore, ... (Intro) ... he always assumed that every harmful phenomenon (extreme weather, rising sea levels and horrible diseases) was correlated or associated with global warming and due to “man made” emissions.

A somewhat fair description of Al. I will overlook the "put words in his mouth" type minor offense. At least the author didn't bought up the internet joke.

Now, let's start at the beginning of the movie ... ( sierra club ) ... Al does not seem to consider that his generation was not the first to love and want to protect the Earth.

don't really care.

Now let science commence

Farther into the movie, Al explains the greenhouse gas effect ... (water vapor ) ... But is water vapor really a bad thing?

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/215837/90

Al also discusses the late Charles Keeling ... ( glacier melting ) ... And the same is true for all of the glaciers he mentioned. They all started retreating at the end of the Little Ice Age (1850). Most glaciers around the world are retreating while some are not, mainly due to changes in storm tracks. Many of the glaciers around the world slowed or reversed their retreats during the cooling period between 1944 and 1976 and began retreating again after that. Many glacier retreats have accelerated in recent years.

Very nice original research, except she missed the point. CO2 does not triggers GW, it just contributes to GW and keep it going. Thus, the time-line she constructed makes logical sense in support of Al: industrial age starts the melting process, GW continues it.subject to local and short term variation.

But then, Al only showed a few picture and you can only conclude so much out of a small sample. For more info on glacier, look here
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/115130/58

Al then begins a presentation about how temperatures during the last thousand years were relatively stable until ... (hockey stick, solar output) ... In this graph you can see that there was an increase in solar activity during the same warming periods listed above.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/14/01828/236
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30666

So she believes it's solar

Al’s presentation on carbon dioxide quickly falls ... ( CO2 leads temp ) ... first then were followed by changes in CO2. ... (couple paragraphs break) Al then shows ... the globe should have been warming at that time.

Again, CO2 is not the catalyst. It just keeps the reaction going.

For anyone who states increased in CO2 is induced by temp, I got a simple question: why? When it's there is the other way around, there is an elegant explanation. So please provide a more scientifically sound argument, or theory, or just maybe. Anything.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76

During this part of the presentation Al says that when you look at the ice core ... ( Clean Air Act affects ice core ) ... he'll correct it in future versions of his slideshow.”

Yep, this one I agree. A mistake is a mistake. Edit out that one sentence please.

Now let’s stop here for just a moment and look at the graph below. We have all heard of El Nino ... (El Nino) ... El Nino’s or solar variation as a part of global warming which is one of his most crucial mistakes.

Well, El Nino as the cause of GW, ok. But throwing out an observation can only accomplishes so much. What about the scientific explanation, the theory behind it? Not even an external link?. She sets out a very poor example if she is trying to say Al failed to do his homework.

People are getting more fat in the past 30 years, and temperature increased during that period. Al Gore failed to account for this fact, which is a crucial mistake. Wow, that's easy.

Al then discusses how many of the worlds cities have broken their temperature records ... ( ?, she is now doubting GW? ) ... about one third of the temperature increase of the last 30 years disappears.

Not sure what she's getting at. UHI exists and is well accepted. But is she backtracking and now tries to cast doubt on GW (the only use of UHI for skeptics)?

In the next section Al discusses computer models, which predict future climate. In my view, predicting future climate with computers is a joke. ... ( ban computer ) ... affect climate such as clouds and water vapor are still not understood.

She's more interested into become a politician than a scientist, it seems. She fully admits things she doesn't understand, yet she's eager to cast her opinion on the subject. Ignorance is strength.


OK this is getting boring. I will only continue if anybody actually wants to read this. I took a quick glance at the remaining stuff and she's going too much off-topic. She's not going to convince me that the only thing GW gives is the gift of Arctic passageway. Seriously, it becomes comical after awhile with gem like this

Al then talks about how the insurance industry pays out more money to flood and storm victims. This may be true but is because more people are building expensive beach houses right where the storms hit.

Conclusion. Very nice attempt by this student. It's certainly much better than the last argument I saw, which can roughly be summarize as: cleaner environment is not profitable, so don't do it.

 

[Andre]

Again, CO2 is not the catalyst. It just keeps the reaction going.

No, it is not, as has been demonstrated here and https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=169202.

 

[mheslep]

... don't confuse me with facts...

Sorry for the interruption. Back to your science now where you 'do things'.

 

[Pythagorean]

Sorry for the interruption. Back to your science now where you 'do things'.

Since you brought it up, I'm analyzing infrasonic signals from Mt. Eerbus on Antartica right now and learning how to use a powerful technique called the Fourier transform (for digital data, though).

Beats whining about the entertainment industry...

 

[edward]

No, it is not, as has been demonstrated here and https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=169202.

Positive feedback has been demonstrated. I can only assume that you disagree. gees this time you referenced your own previous posts.

Science Daily — Studies have shown that global climate change can set-off positive feedback loops in nature which amplify warming and cooling trends. Now, researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley have been able to quantify the feedback implied by past increases in natural carbon dioxide and methane gas levels. Their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060522151248.htm

 

[mheslep]

Positive feedback has been demonstrated. I can only assume that you disagree. gees this time you referenced your own previous posts.rolleyes:

Which in turn references a good set of external references in line w/ a detailed discussion pro/con discusion.

If you see any fallacies in either of those threads from either point of view please point them out.

 

[Andre]

Positive feedback has been demonstrated. I can only assume that you disagree. gees this time you referenced your own previous posts.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060522151248.htm

Most certainly I disagree. Whilst certain elements in the global warming arena constitute positive feedback like albedo changes due to snow cover, Olavi Karner showed in detail why the overall nett feedback effect is negative. Math included. I show the calculation model of feedback (not to be confused with prediction model) that refutes a nett positive feedback on the Antarctic ice core proxies. You'd show the math that this is not true.

 

[edward]

Most certainly I disagree. Whilst certain elements in the global warming arena constitute positive feedback like albedo changes due to snow cover, Olavi Karner showed in detail why the overall nett feedback effect is negative. Math included. I show the calculation model of feedback (not to be confused with prediction model) that refutes a nett positive feedback on the Antarctic ice core proxies. You'd show the math that this is not true.

I didn't show any math, and what do albedo changes due to snow cover have to do with anything other than seasonal changes?
You have already stated that all of the models, which I presume would include the math are not true! Am I to accept that only your selected models are true? Fluff from 2001 will not override fact from 2007.

Did you ever consider that your boy from Estonia is full of himself?

 

[Andre]

what do albedo changes due to snow cover have to do with anything other than seasonal changes?

Snow cover is a true example of positive feedback on temperature. But indeed, since the seasonal changes appear not to be affected too much, it's a very weak feedback. nevertheless it's used many times to illustrate positive feedback.

You have already stated that all of the models, which I presume would include the math are not true! Am I to accept that only your selected models are true?

You are confusing mahematical models with prediction models. mathematical models like Karner uses, are very useful to capture natural processes. Prediction models just do what the programmer thinks they should do. Claiming that prediction models proof something should be considered a criminal act.

Fluff from 2001 will not override fact from 2007.

There is no time limit on data processing. Karners calculations can be repeated to today and in 10 years or anytime. That's science, reproduceability. Don't you think that if Karners calculations were proven to be wrong that para 1a sub (1) of the summary of policy makers would state that positive feedback, the main issue of global warming, is proven? The fact that this study is carefully avoided, suggests otherwise.

Did you ever consider that your boy from Estonia is full of himself?

That statement is an ad hominem attack, which usually indicates that there are no genuine arguments. It could be noted that the ad hominem attack is the main element of the global warming hype. Anybody who is *against* global warming must necesarily be a crook, a denialist, etc. it's unthinkable of course that being sceptic has to do with the science behind global warming just being junk.

 

[edward]

Andre you are getting much too upset about this. The remark was not aimed at you.

A number of little known scientists have gained recognition by coming out against GW in the past few years. Can I not question their credibility? And yet you expect to call all other science junk.:rolleyes:

 

[Pythagorean]

You are confusing mahematical models with prediction models. mathematical models like Karner uses, are very useful to capture natural processes. Prediction models just do what the programmer thinks they should do. Claiming that prediction models proof something should be considered a criminal act.

Don't you think this is bias behavior? Discounting all prediction models? I am interested in the Global Warming Debate, and not Global Warming itself, I don't think I'm educated enough to make conclusions about GW, but I think it's interesting to watch the behavior of AGW extremists (yes, I'm commiting the middle-ground fallacy, I'm aware of that, but I find arguments like yours to be as extremist and bias as the millennial fever crowd.

That statement is an ad hominem attack, which usually indicates that there are no genuine arguments. It could be noted that the ad hominem attack is the main element of the global warming hype.

This is something I've seen you do before too, accuse those of us who are non-partial (who may or may not study GW, and are mildly curious, but haven't made a judgment. In my case, I'm studying a scientific debate, and not particularly the science) of having some sort of tactic. You pick your words carefully, but you imply we're AGW advocates attempting to convince everyone that the end is near.

I like the way this guy put it:

...Skepticism thus plays an essential role in scientific research, and, far from trying to silence skeptics, science invites their contributions. So too, the global warming debate benefits from traditional scientific skepticism.

I have argued in a recent book review that some "greenhouse skeptics" subvert the scientific process, ceasing to act as objective scientists, rather presenting only one side, as if they were lawyers hired to defend a particular viewpoint. But some of the topics focused on by the skeptics are recognized as legitimate research questions, and also it is fair to say that the injection of environmental, political and religious perspectives in midstream of the science research has occurred from both sides in the global warming debate.

from http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/"

and note this:

But when Pat Michaels testified to congress in 1998 and showed our 1988 predictions (Fig. 1) he erased the curves for scenarios B and C, and showed the result only for scenario A. He then argued that, since the real world temperature had not increased as fast as this model calculation, the climate model was faulty and there was no basis for concern about climate change, specifically concluding that the Kyoto Protocol was "a useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty".