Paging Mr. Gore......

[Danzig]

A sample of experts' comments
about the science of An Inconvenient Truth


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."


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."

[Danzig]

Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists
Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears
Claim 95% of Meteorologists Skeptical

19 Feb 07 - Increasing numbers of scientists and climate experts are growing more skeptical of predictions of a man-made catastrophe.

Ohio TV meteorologists, Dan Webster, Dick Goddard, Mark Johnson, Mark Nolan and John Loufman, mock the UN's global warming alarmism. "You tell me you’re going to predict climate change based on 100 years of data for a rock that’s 6 billion years old?" Johnson said.

"I’m not sure which is more arrogant; to say we caused (global warming) or that we can fix it," Nolan said. "Mr. Webster observed that in his dealings with meteorologists nationwide, that about 95% share his skepticism about global warming."

From The Cleveland Plain Dealer, 16 Feb 07: "TV Weathermen Downplay Global Warming Fears."
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaind...210.xml&coll=2

See also http://www.crainscleveland.com/apps/.../70213008/1010

Thanks to Craig Adkins for this link.

And here’s a quote from Kentucky meteorologist Chris Allenâ’s blog on the 2007 UN IPCC global warming report:

"Just because major environmental groups, big media and some politicians are buying this hook, line and sinker doesn't mean as a TV weatherperson I am supposed to act as a puppy on a leash and follow along," Allen said in his blog titled "Still Not Convinced" on February 7, 2007. Allen has the Seal of Approval of the National Weather Association and is the chairman of the Kentucky Weather Preparedness Committee.

"As I have stated before, not only do I believe global climate change exists - it has always existed. There have been times of global warming and cooling," Allen, who is with WBKO in Bowling Green, added.

[Danzig]

More Than 17,000 Scientists
Protest Kyoto Accord


Has everyone forgotten this? In April 1998, more than 17,000 scientists,
two-thirds of whom hold advanced academic degrees, signed a Petition against
the Kyoto climate accord. The Petition urged the US government to reject the
Accord, which would force drastic cuts in energy use on the United States .

In signing the Petition, the 17,000 basic and applied scientists -- an
unprecedented number for this kind of document -- expressed their profound
skepticism about the science underlying the Kyoto Accord. The atmospheric
data simply do not support the elaborate computer-driven climate models that
are being cited by the United Nations and other promoters of the Accord
as "proof" of a major future warming. The covering letter enclosed with the
Petition, signed by Dr. Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller
University and a past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences,
states it well:

"The treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on
climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To
the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide
is environmentally helpful."

"The 'silent majority' of the scientific community has at last spoken out against
the hype emanating from politicians and much of the media about a 'warming
catastrophe.' The Petition reflects the frustration and disgust felt by working
scientists, few of whom have been previously involved in the ongoing climate
debate, about the misuse of science to promote a political agenda," said Dr. Seitz.

The Petition drive was organized by Dr. Arthur Robinson, director of the Oregon
Institute for Science and Medicine (Cave Junction, OR) and a vocal critic of the
shaky science used to support the Kyoto Accord. It was staffed by volunteers
and supported entirely by private donations, with no contributions from industry.

"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.

[Danzig]

Top astrophysicist denies global warming exists


2 Feb 07 - Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, a prolific researcher and one of Israel's top young scientists, no longer accepts the logic of man-made global warming. "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence.

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states.

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate. -- nor will cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states.

His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."

[Danzig]

i could continue...but that's a fair amount of reading material, anyone can do a search for more.

but, it all depends on what you choose to believe, as there are scientists on both sides. just like some still believe in creation, and some in evolution.

enjoy.

[GenuineRisk]

Danzig, creationism isn't a science; it's a religious belief. I wouldn't use that as a comparison. Evolution is a Theory, yes, but it's a Theory on the level of gravity, which is also a Theory.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...warming05.html

Referring to Dr. Gray; he's also very dismissive of advances in meteorological research, specifically using computer-generated models, because it's dried up his research grants. Again, not to say he doesn't have an agenda... And remember, he's a hurricane specialist; not a climate specialist.

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archiv...ray_revis.html

First post:

<<August 09, 2006

In recent years, Colorado State University's Bill Gray has become one of the most visible critics of climate scientists who warn about the consequences of increased greenhouse gas emissions, and a warming world.

Look no further than a recently published, enlightening article in the Washington Post on climate change critics. It presents, on the whole, a somewhat sympathetic view of Gray.

As a science writer, I have respect for Gray's work in predicting hurricane season activity, and he is certainly one of the world's most famous hurricane scientists. But, golly, he sure doesn't like the view that humans might be inducing climate change. I wrote about his vitriol here, and it also came up in an interview I did with Jeff Masters. Gray's views on climate science have not been well received by practicing scientists.

The point Jeff made is that Gray has lost favor with the scientific community not because of his science, but because he is making strong statements without backing them up with evidence. This view has been confirmed by Texas A&M's Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist who recently spoke to Gray at a scientific meeting:

After arguing with him for a few minutes, it became clear that Bill Gray has no scientific theory of his own *why* the water vapor feedback is negative, and no data to support his non-theory. He has no manuscript describing his non-theory and no plans to attempt to publish it.

After I pointed out all of the evidence supporting a positive feedback, he looked confused and finally said, "OK, maybe the feedback isn't negative, maybe it's neutral. I'll give you that." I quickly concluded that he has no idea what he's talking about. I wish everyone that considers him credible could have witnessed this exchange.

I might also add that Gray made two appearances at this year's hurricane conference at the National Hurricane Conference that were handled, and probably sponsored, by Tech Central Station. This is an important detail because the Web site's funding has been linked to Exxon, among others, in this article and by other sources.

I'd also like to add that this post in no way should be construed as an attack on Gray's annual hurricane predictions, nor his able colleague Phil Klotzbach, who now does a majority of the forecasting work.>>

That's the same National Hurricane Conference that you cite in your earlier posts, isn't it, Danzig?

Next post: the 17,000 scientists:

[GenuineRisk]

<<Were They Duped?
In response to the the claim that the Anti-Global Warming Petition Project had gathered 19,000 signatures of scientists who allegedly downplay the significance of climate change, the Union of Concerned Scientists wrote this response to suggest that many of the signees might have been duped.

"In the spring of 1998," the Union writes, "mailboxes of US scientists flooded with a packet from the 'Global Warming Petition Project,' including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed 'Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth,' a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that 'increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate,' a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide 'would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.'

"The sponsor, the little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not. The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, 'the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.'

"The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in an renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations.">>

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/cit...0347/C396/L396

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Danzig, creationism isn't a science; it's a religious belief. I wouldn't use that as a comparison. Evolution is a Theory, yes, but it's a Theory on the level of gravity, which is also a Theory.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...warming05.html

Referring to Dr. Gray; he's also very dismissive of advances in meteorological research, specifically using computer-generated models, because it's dried up his research grants. Again, not to say he doesn't have an agenda... And remember, he's a hurricane specialist; not a climate specialist.

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archiv...ray_revis.html

First post:

<<August 09, 2006

In recent years, Colorado State University's Bill Gray has become one of the most visible critics of climate scientists who warn about the consequences of increased greenhouse gas emissions, and a warming world.

Look no further than a recently published, enlightening article in the Washington Post on climate change critics. It presents, on the whole, a somewhat sympathetic view of Gray.

As a science writer, I have respect for Gray's work in predicting hurricane season activity, and he is certainly one of the world's most famous hurricane scientists. But, golly, he sure doesn't like the view that humans might be inducing climate change. I wrote about his vitriol here, and it also came up in an interview I did with Jeff Masters. Gray's views on climate science have not been well received by practicing scientists.

The point Jeff made is that Gray has lost favor with the scientific community not because of his science, but because he is making strong statements without backing them up with evidence. This view has been confirmed by Texas A&M's Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist who recently spoke to Gray at a scientific meeting:

After arguing with him for a few minutes, it became clear that Bill Gray has no scientific theory of his own *why* the water vapor feedback is negative, and no data to support his non-theory. He has no manuscript describing his non-theory and no plans to attempt to publish it.

After I pointed out all of the evidence supporting a positive feedback, he looked confused and finally said, "OK, maybe the feedback isn't negative, maybe it's neutral. I'll give you that." I quickly concluded that he has no idea what he's talking about. I wish everyone that considers him credible could have witnessed this exchange.

I might also add that Gray made two appearances at this year's hurricane conference at the National Hurricane Conference that were handled, and probably sponsored, by Tech Central Station. This is an important detail because the Web site's funding has been linked to Exxon, among others, in this article and by other sources.

I'd also like to add that this post in no way should be construed as an attack on Gray's annual hurricane predictions, nor his able colleague Phil Klotzbach, who now does a majority of the forecasting work.>>

That's the same National Hurricane Conference that you cite in your earlier posts, isn't it, Danzig?

Next post: the 17,000 scientists:

i put that as a point of comparison due to the vast amount of people who want to teach creationism/intelligen design in science class as a rebuttal to the theory of evolution. try telling them it doesn't fit! but that's a whole different subject.

back to global warming tho. some scientists think it's true, others do not. both have credentials. so how to move forward?
having grown up during a time when the next ice age was rapidly approaching, i guess i'll take the warnings of the exact opposite suddenly occuring with a grain of salt.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Danzig, creationism isn't a science; it's a religious belief. I wouldn't use that as a comparison. Evolution is a Theory, yes, but it's a Theory on the level of gravity, which is also a Theory.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...warming05.html

Referring to Dr. Gray; he's also very dismissive of advances in meteorological research, specifically using computer-generated models, because it's dried up his research grants. Again, not to say he doesn't have an agenda... And remember, he's a hurricane specialist; not a climate specialist.

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archiv...ray_revis.html

First post:

<<August 09, 2006

In recent years, Colorado State University's Bill Gray has become one of the most visible critics of climate scientists who warn about the consequences of increased greenhouse gas emissions, and a warming world.

Look no further than a recently published, enlightening article in the Washington Post on climate change critics. It presents, on the whole, a somewhat sympathetic view of Gray.

As a science writer, I have respect for Gray's work in predicting hurricane season activity, and he is certainly one of the world's most famous hurricane scientists. But, golly, he sure doesn't like the view that humans might be inducing climate change. I wrote about his vitriol here, and it also came up in an interview I did with Jeff Masters. Gray's views on climate science have not been well received by practicing scientists.

The point Jeff made is that Gray has lost favor with the scientific community not because of his science, but because he is making strong statements without backing them up with evidence. This view has been confirmed by Texas A&M's Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist who recently spoke to Gray at a scientific meeting:

After arguing with him for a few minutes, it became clear that Bill Gray has no scientific theory of his own *why* the water vapor feedback is negative, and no data to support his non-theory. He has no manuscript describing his non-theory and no plans to attempt to publish it.

After I pointed out all of the evidence supporting a positive feedback, he looked confused and finally said, "OK, maybe the feedback isn't negative, maybe it's neutral. I'll give you that." I quickly concluded that he has no idea what he's talking about. I wish everyone that considers him credible could have witnessed this exchange.

I might also add that Gray made two appearances at this year's hurricane conference at the National Hurricane Conference that were handled, and probably sponsored, by Tech Central Station. This is an important detail because the Web site's funding has been linked to Exxon, among others, in this article and by other sources.

I'd also like to add that this post in no way should be construed as an attack on Gray's annual hurricane predictions, nor his able colleague Phil Klotzbach, who now does a majority of the forecasting work.>>

That's the same National Hurricane Conference that you cite in your earlier posts, isn't it, Danzig?

Next post: the 17,000 scientists:

Genuine Risk,
Though "evolution" is called a theory, developmental biology isn't.
Someone said that science must be observable and replicable. No arguement with that.
Early studies involving "primordial soup" (and I'll need to find the research to give the link) showed that basic protien chains (previral) could be created in a lab.
If you're interested, here's a book that might get you started. Note Dawkin's take on it.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Seven-Clues-...dp/0521398282/