There have recently been a substantial number of articles published here regarding Global Warming in general and the recently released work of sensationalized fiction "An Inconvenient Truth" by failed presidential candidate Al Gore.
Proponents of the theories and and hypotheses discussed (actually presented as indisputable facts, which is what switches this movie from documentary to fiction/entertainment), endlessly claim the debate is over and that virtually all "credible" members of the scientific community share a "consensus" about it. This is patently untrue on it's face. The claim of a consensus is true only to the point that the majority of scientists believe that the Earth is in fact experiencing a warming cycle currently and that it has been going on for 150 years give or take.
There is NO consensus (a word by the way, proponents use to hide the fact that there is very little agreement on the causes) on the cause. There ARE several theories all as of yet unproven.
What I find truly disturbing, (ok annoying) is the the glib dismissal of anyone who dares challenge this opinion by the carriers of the Gore mentality of "the sky is falling". Any scientist who's finding contradict those of the Gore model is immediately dismissed as "a shill for big oil" or a "junk scientist" ie: idiot. One then must be left with the assumption that their information is by default gleaned from those of pristine motivation beyond reproach and driven by the sole goal of saving humanity from itself. .
Let's start there. How sanctimonious must one be, to out of hand, dismiss the opinions and work of world respected scientists and scholars by virtue solely of the fact you disagree with them? I shouldn't find it surprising, this has been Gore's attitude for as long as he has been in the public eye. It is largely the reason he failed to attain that which he so hungered for, the Oval Office. People have always sensed about Gore an underlying sense of superiority. His unconsciously condescending way of talking very slowly to an audience, almost as if he is aware of how much smarter he is than you, so by slowing himself down, perhaps some of the genius of what he says will find it's way into your/our simple minds.
We are also led to believe that Mr Gore's championing of this issue is somehow a philanthropic enterprise. To date "An Inconvenient Truth" has grossed worldwide over 45 Million dollars. On top of which Gore has now become the darling of the left's speaking circuit.
"Gore's speaking fee is $100,000, according to Leah Hardesty, a spokeswoman for Arizona State University, where he is to appear on April 2. At least 11 lectures by Gore are scheduled over the next 11 weeks, according to announcements by sponsoring organizations. Gore's spokeswoman did not return repeated requests for comment."
The link to that article is :http://www.nhne.org/news/NewsArticlesArchive/tabid/400/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2789/Al-Gore-The-Goracle.aspx
By my math that's $1.1 million for 11 weeks. Not a bad payday for a political has been. So much for his motivation and that of his sources. Add to that the fact that Mr Gore is much too important to fly on commercial airlines with the likes of you or I. Heaven forbid he should have to engage the less intelligent in face to face to conversation without collecting his fee. He and and his small group of sycophants travel by private jet and picked up SUV motorcades. Al Gores home in Tennesee is one of the largest in the state and consumes in more electricity in a a day than most of his neioghbors homes do in a week.
Al Gore has made the Global Warming issue his own private industry and is making HUGE personal profit from it. I hardly think that this makes him objective in the assessments he makes of this issue. To say that he is not subject to the same litmus test as other sources is intellectually dishonest at least and outright fraudulent at worst.
According to observations made of the our neighboring planets in the solar system Mars and Pluto are also at this time experiencing significant warming of their planetwide environment. Mars' polar ice caps have shrunk noticeably over the last 4 decades. I pose this question, as I have on several other articles. If humans are causing the warming trend on Earth through or burning of fosil fuels, how is it that planets where , presumably, there is no fossil fuel byproducts being created experienceing a similar climactic change? Could it be that to admit that this current warming period is the result of increased solar flare activity, as has been suggested by several European scientists and validated by data collected by NASA, would kill the goose that laid the golden egg for Mr Gore and his chicken little "the sky is falling" supporters?
I truly hope that someone can answer that question. I have posted it 5 times in threads of different articles and as of yet the people who have smeared, denigrated and insulted those who disagree with them, have all fallen strangely silent and not responded to it.........
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 39
Consensus on global warming
If humans are causing the warming trend on Earth through or burning of fosil fuels, how is it that planets where , presumably, there is no fossil fuel byproducts being created experienceing a similar climactic change
On possible drivers of Sun-induced climate changes
I truly hope that someone can answer that question.
Answered.
The rest of the article is invective and not worth my time.
The rest is invective? Pointing out the fact that there most certainly is a financial motivation on Gore's side is invective? Since when sre facts that oppose a viewpoint invective? In debating I believe those are called counterpoints.
more:
Hot times in the Solar System
"The warming of other solar bodies has been seized upon by climate sceptics; but oh how wrong they are, says Oliver Morton". But then he is writing in that dodgy rag Nature, so what does he know? "If the shooting of fish in barrels offends you, look away. The publication this week of a Nature paper on global warming on Mars offers a fantastic opportunity to kill off one of the silliest climate-sceptic arguments, and I'm more than happy to be pointing the gun at the water. The sceptical 'argument' -- using the word loosely -- in question is that global warming on Earth should be seen as a natural, as opposed to anthropogenic, phenomenon because other planets and moons in the Solar System are getting warmer, too"
And so on. The trigger for this is a paper by Fenton et al. on "Global warming and climate forcing by recent albedo changes on Mars".
Its nice of Nature to take the time to stomp on the septic stupidity. Normally what happens is that the septic wacko stuff (a-la Lubos) is so wacky that no-one bothers even to refute it. Which then makes finding a reputable source for refutation tricky :-)
Yes, it is. I expect you to do some work.
No, due to my mistake
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/04/hot_times_in_the_solar_system.php
Should get you there.
No, I expect you to read them. I am tired of doing all the leg work.
yet dismiss any that opose it as junk science or paid "shilling". You see no hypocrisy in that??
I don't see a problem with Al Gore getting paid to talk. He doesn't claim to be a scientist and doesn't claim to do science. There are "paid shills" who are indeed paid by Exxon to do "research" and attempt to publish their findings in juried publications like Nature or Science. Their findings have been refuted time and time again.
I really enjoyed reading your article. I know we discussed some of the facts and misperceptions on this topic in my article poses the question about Gore running in 2008.
As a professional environmental scientist for the past 17 years, I have looked into climatic changes quite a bit and I have to conclude the that jury is still out on the "definitive" single cause of global warming during the past 200 years. Actually it is likely that the "climatic warming" observed may be the result of several terrestrial & extraterrestrial causes. In fact, the terrestrial causes may not entirely be due to causes in the atmosphere, affects from the earth's interior may play a significant role, but this has largely NOT been explored.
As you are aware (because I believe you commented on this at length in my article about Gore), the Earth undergoes numerous local, regional & climatic changes through various cycles constantly. There certainly is evidence that human beings and their "creations" - chemical releases, impervious ground cover, etc. - do cause global warming locally. However, the jury is still out as to what signficant role (if any) human beings' discharges/effects are actually causing globally (if at all). The problem is that there are so many contributing factors (man-made causes only being one of them) that it is difficult to sort out.
Your point about the observations on other planets definitely suggests a strong possibility that there is a solar cause (at least in part) for warming on several planets in our solar system.
Just out of curiousity...have you actually seen Gore's film? I have not, but I'm actually quite curious to see it - the problem is that I will probably be cringing too much and disturb my wife by interrupting the film to put it into perspective (it is difficult to remain silent when an area in my own professional field is being discussed in my presence - especially on film).
Your comment essentially explains, more eloquently I might add, my position. I am not saying that Gore is wrong necessarily, but I am challenging the assertion that the discussion is over... I resent the blithe dismissal of any evidence or argument that is counter to Gore's. There is an intellectual elitism from the supporters that is nothing short of insulting. I do not claim to be anything approaching an expert in this area. I\As a matter of fact I was on the other side of this argument until reading a book by Michael Crichton called State of Fear. It was not the science in the book that changed my opinion, but rather the behind the scenes politics and big money of enviromental groups like the Sierra Clun and others. These organizations ARE big business. The footnotes at the end of this book were probably as if not more fascinating than the book itself and act as cautionary tale of impulsive reactions to environmental conditions. When DDT was outlawed to protect ostensibly predatory birds (falcons, eagles, hawks and other raptors.) malaria was almost completely eradicated world wide. This was no small feat as in the decade before it was leading cause of death in tropical climes. Since the ban on DDT over 10 million people have dies from this disease. Mostly in third world countries. Is this price an acceptable one to pay for these birds?
In the early 1900's visitors to Yellowstone frequently saw wolves taking down elk and deer. The response was a wolf kill off withing the park. Withim five years the deer/elk population exploded to the point that virtually all undergrowth in the park was eaten. Th elk/deer began dying off from starvation and the lack of vegetation helped contributed to the largest natural fire in the parks history.
In a closed system (earth) any change to one part of the system MUST have unforseen effects in virtually all other parts of that system. It is the Law of Unintended consequences.
If I am in error anywhere here please correct me Ron. I expect the fact that I mention Crichton having affected my position will open me to cakles of derision from the oposing side. I would add DR Michael Crichton is well known in literary circles for doing exhaustive research and being factually correct in the ancillary science in his novels.
Thanks Ron. Incidentally I have not seen the movie in it's entirety. The love in at the Oscars so nauseated me I have been hesitant to watch it for fear of damage I might unintentionally do to my TV. I do intend to as soon as my friend refills her Xanax script though...
As a professional environmental scientist for the past 17 years
What does that mean? Where did you get your degree and in what? I ask because I have past experience here of people who present themselves as having more scientific credentials than they do.
I have to conclude the that jury is still out on the "definitive" single cause of global warming during the past 200 years.
You'll notice Chris, that Ronald is not a global warming skeptic.
There certainly is evidence that human beings and their "creations" - chemical releases, impervious ground cover, etc. - do cause global warming locally. However, the jury is still out as to what signficant role (if any) human beings' discharges/effects are actually causing globally (if at all).
Ummm.. actually, no. In fact that jury is in. Weird huh? But it turns out that increasing global CO2 concentrations to 33% actually has an affect on climate.
observations on other planets definitely suggests a strong possibility that there is a solar cause (at least in part) for warming on several planets in our solar system.
Wrong again Ronald. It's summer on Pluto.
BTW Chris W. it turns out that banning DDT was a good thing. Who knew that dumping something like Agent Orange would harm the environment?
We did.
DDT affects male fertility?
South African medical researchers have reported alarming evidence of low sperm counts and other damage to the male reproductive system linked to the use of the pesticide DDT in anti-malaria spray campaigns.
You can thank the Sierra Club for your children.
You on the other hand, are a violent fascist pig.
And you wonder why I am a little aggressive, it's self defense (justifiably so I might add). Don't ever lay that on me again.
You did exactly what I mention in the original argument. Thank you for giving me a written example to prove my point. You challenge to the point of smearing someone who claims to have 17 years experience in the field. Who speaks calmly and rationally, bringing up salient points. Your response is to imply he is a fraud. On what do you base that opinion??? Because he has the temerity to disagree with Al Gore??? Are you joking?? In what field is Gore's degree?? Poli/sci? or Law. I'm willing to bet you my house he doesn't have a degree in any earth science beyond watching the Discovery channel and Mr. Science on PBS. SO Ron is a fake, but we are supposed to take on face value you and what you say because you reference some article or book. How about if say they are frauds bought by Gore, or the PAC that runs this movement... Oh you hadn't mentioned that there is a political component to this had you?? HHmmmmm Oversight or more obfuscation??
Cassie while your passion is appreciated please tone down the language.
I encourage all readers to click on the link http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/04/hot_times_in_the_solar_system.php
This the link that Brenda the self righteous so conveniently renamed so that readers would not see it was a link to another blog!!! Specifically to an article much like this one by a person much like me, who according to Brenda, is an idiot. He must be, because I saw no Phd next to his name, no accreditation next to his name, as a matter of fact he made NO CLAIM whatsoever to having any clue whatsoever about what he spoke of, other than, like all of us here (with the exception of Ron who, unlike Brenda, I choose to take at his word unless or until I am given reason not to, other than because Brenda said so.) opinion based on what he believes.
So there you have it Brenda's impeachable source is.........................ANOTHER BLOG SITE!! Everyone knows EVERY article published on blog sites are absolutely 100% true................unless of course Brenda disagrees with them then the writer is a shill.
Furthermore withing that article is another link to a paper written by
Lori K. Fenton1, Paul E. Geissler3 & Robert M. Haberle2
1. Carl Sagan Center,
2. Space Science Division, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California 94035, USA
3.US Geological Survey, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001, USA
I suggest reading that paper which the author of the blog article uses to bolster his claim against solar activity being a factor in the climactic changes on Mars.
While the writers do not directly discredit that theory, what they do suggest is that NATURAL PLANETARY conditions are responsible for the .65C increase in the mean Martian temp over the last 30 years. Incidentally a almost 65% larger temperature increase than the one experienced on Earth over the same time.
Brenda you apparently so intent on debunking the solar flare activity that you either didn't read or din't understand the paper. It says in no uncertain terms that the temperature increase on Mars is a natural phenomena........
So Brenda, unless these people, who you recommended I read, are frauds as well it would appear that you have just proven, that climactic changes on a planetary scale are:
1. Not uncommon or specific to Earth.
2. Are a naturally occuring event in the life cycle of a planet.
3. This one is soooooooooo SWEET. The paper would suggest (at least anecdotally {sp?} that the effect of human industrialization has actually mitigated this warming trend!!!!
Oh my!! Oh my!! You know Brenda a person could spend most of their life debating issues with another and not be handed such a perfect and karmic opportunity as to have your opponent direct them to the evidence that debunks their argument..
I thank you.
Every single person before has replied with insults, lies and deceit. So you can pat yourself on the back and congratulate yourself for being the first global warming skeptic who hasn't treated me like crap because I dared to disagree with them. I put up with that for a while and then I decided to give as good as I was getting.
And I never smeared Ron, not once. Gotta go.
I felt it was only intellectually honest to see your source and evaluate it for myself...
Brenda tsk tsk, you are smarter than that. Was that just a little trap to see if anyone actually followed up instead of blindly ranting?
I'll tell you a secret Brenda, many of the people who I often find on the other side of issues with me, I don't follow their links. There are a few reasons for this:
1. Many of them, I need not name names here are so insulting I feel any type of research suggested by them somehow endorses their blind tirades.
2. There are more than a few out here of whom I suspect don't really hold an opinion they espouse, but rather just want to derail or sidetrack a thread. Or are so idealogically blinded there is no point debating them about anything. If I said the ocean was wet, they would find some article somewhere by someone who would "prove" that in fact it is not wet, but that we have been brainwashed by someone or some governemnt entity to think that it is, so we have travel by plane to Europe and Asia. If we realized it wasn't really water, all the big corporations like Boeing, Lockheed, Geberal Dynamics, (all part of the secret cabal of the industrial/military that runs this country, unbeknownst to all but the very few enlightened (ie. Insane) people like them.
I'd like to present exhibit A, and by far the most pristine example of this type of gatherer I have thus far encountered.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976953205
I really don't get what the big deal is, I thought that I asked fairly politely and explained that sometimes people misrepresent themselves online. I have debated creationists for years and they consistently claim to have degrees from non-existent universities or from paper-mills. As a result, I have become suspicious when people who make dumb arguments that I a lay person can see right through, then claim to have advanced degrees.
I wouldn't even care about that except that it goes to character and ends the debate real fast.
I agree that there are extremes on bother sides, that both corporate and environmental concerns are involved and that conspiracy theories are insane. I also don't think that a science fiction writer is the best person to get your science from. And... I still think that Real Climate, Deltiod and Stoat are good science blogs and contain accurate information.
I will get to your specific reply soon. but it's midnight.
At the same time, there are a great many harmful things man continues to do to his environment, some through ignorance, some through indifference, and some through sheer arrogance. However, some of the suggestions I've read to help reduce greenhouse emissions (example: Bill Bradley's suggestion regarding gas-powered vehicles) are incredibly short-sighted and don't necessarily address a deeper issue, that we need to be willing to exhibit a little more awareness and a lot more self-control. Our lack of respect for what is around is evident in everything mankind does...
These temperature cycles Kathleen don't come and go every few years. They tend run in cycles of 10,000-15000 years. So you really need to look at a much larger sample than 100 years which is 1% or less of any given cycle. Kinda like lookin at the caboose of a train as it goes by and trying to figure out what's in the box cars..
An Inconvenient Truth has made Al Gore several million dollars and he get 100K per speaking engagement. You don't think that could affect his position? Not that long ago he was on the Ice Age is coming bandwagon. Question everything. Show me something I can see, in context and repeat it more than once, then we can talk. Other wise I'm convinced of nothing.
Other than it's damn cold here for the end of April!!!!
I have a Masters Degree in Geology (1990). I am current Vice President of our State's Association of Environmental Professionals. I am Professionally licensed as a Geologist in 5 States and hold numerous other professional licenses in various environmental fields with a variety of State & Federal agencies (including the EPA). I am published in my field and have taught various courses.
If you are interested, I could send you a copy of my vitae to further demonstrate my professional scientific credentials.
Brenda, my comments pertaining to solar cause for warming on various planets was based upon data obtained recently from Mars, Venus & Jupiter, all of which have experienced similiar warming trends at the same time the Earth has. These modifications in global temperature on these other planets has been well documented in a number of technical papers in scientific (peer reviewed) journals.
Also, Chris or I are responsible for any comments Cassie (or anyone else) have made. So, your request for an apology is rejected because your charge laid at our feet is unfounded and beyond our responsibility or capabilities (to prevent speech of another).
Great comments. I concur.
I have been tempted to watch "Inconvenient Truth", but from the "clips" that I have seen, I think I won't be able to contain myself because of the overexagerations being presented in this documentary.
I think it is important to have a balanced objective view on this topic (and of course, all topics). Clearly human beings are capable adversely affecting our environment - to the point of causing great health risks to human beings and to other species. If this was not so, then there would be no need for the service that my environmental consulting firm provides.
However, when it comes to theorizing as to the causes of global climatic changes, scientists need to be careful to avoid drawing sweeping conclusions without carefully investigating all of the realistic, potential causes for those changes - of course, this is very difficult and usually beyond the scope of a particular field of scientific research. The actual ability of certain causes to produce an effect is largely unknown based upon very limited data.
Much of the global warming "conclusions" seem to be the result of a "rush to judgment" due to pressure to do so. I recall carefully following the Antarctic ozone hole phenomenon, which was discovered in the mid-1980s (following nearly 30 years of Antarctic ozone measurements). Ozone depletion has generally been the trend in the Antarctic's stratosphere for the past 20-30 years; however this phenomenon is largely misunderstood. The Ozone "hole" only develops & exists for 1-2 months during the year, then it ceases to exist for most of the year again. Additionally, all the evidence (remember, we have only been monitoring this in detail with satellite technology for the past 20 years or so) points to the fact that his ozone hole trend has likely always existed at Antarctica. The reduction (even though it is an overall trend during the past 20-30 years) does fluctuate dramatically from year to year. The reduction in ozone in Antarctica's stratosphere may be the cause of increasing CFC's being discharged to the atmosphere; however most scientists agree that this trend is likely to reverse itself and that before the end of the 21st Century, the Ozone concentrations over Antarctica are likely to have reached levels first measured in the mid-1950s.
I agree that we need to act more responsibly that we have been (and this needs to start with the individual). However, people in the West have been gradually acting more environmentally concious and reversing the previous trend of environmental reckless behaviour (largely out of ignorance) since the early 1970s. Contaminant concentrations being released to the environment today are much lower (at least in the West) than they were 30+ years ago. We are more aware.
I have to agree that "scare tactics" have proven effective toward this end; however as a seeker of truth & fact, I must condemn this Machievellian practice which uses error and deceipt as a means to that end.
I would encourage everyone to consider purchasing a more environmentally friendly automobile (I know I am seriously considering it). We should all be considering this even for hedonistic reasons - because you end up purchasing less gasoline than you would in a conventional vehicle.
I recently worked on a spill involving gasoline with 35% ethanol. When gasoline containing ethanol reaches groundwater, the ethanol reduces the rate at which natural biodegredation of the petroleum hydrocarbons occurs. Ethanol also causes the contaminant plume to migrate farther and faster than traditional "non-ethanol" MTBE-containing gasoline. A partial benefit is that ethanol degrades very quickly in groundwater; however in doing so it will dramatically reduce the dissolved oxygen content (which if this groundwater is feeding a surface water ecosystem, this will make this water body less habitable - at least during this process which usually is completed within 6-12 months - based upon the studies that I have performed). MTBE does remain much longer in the subsurface and does have a tendency to produce TBA (a more toxic compound) if undergoing active chemical oxidation remediation, whereas this does not occur with ethanol contamination. Thus, in the short run a spill involving ethanol can have a greater degree of adverse effects, including a more rapid volume of harmful ecosystem effects; however these effects are much more short-lived than gasoline containing high concentrations of MTBE, whose effects are more chronic.
The truth is somewhere in the middle. Each side however seeks to demonize the other.
I recently finished assisting a homeowner in a lawsuit involving exposure to benzene (which of course is carcinogenic). The homeowner was suing a company who spilled fuel while making a routine fuel oil delivery, unfortunately, the company's representative DID NOT completely remove all of the fuel and elevated concentrations of benzene (comparable to those found in a bar filled with smokers) remain in this poor man's home 4 years after the incident. Fortunately, the homeowner won the lawsuit, now he is empowered financially to identify the remaining specific locations of the benzene and have them removed from his home (of course, I am assisting him with this effort).
Your comments about "exposure to second hand smoke" made me think of this incident. It was sad to see the fuel company's hired Certified Industrial Hygienist (who works for a Federal governmental agency, supposedly protecting human health) sit there with a straight face and tell the jury that the family was not at an elevated risk to get cancer because "statistically" a large number of people get cancer anyway - not very comforting to the homeowner, knowing that his young daughters & wife are now exposed to more than 100 times the benzene that exists in the ambient air in his community.
I was honored to lend my professional expertise to aid the homeowner in fighting the big corporation (backed by big insurance company $$$) and actually be on the winning side. You have to be willing to make some enemies in financially powerful positions to help people who are being kicked around by the big guy.