An Inconvient Truth

Apples and oranges.

 

"Radical Right Wing Agenda"

Lindzen charged oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; and his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC.

Lindzen does acknowledge that thousands of scientists from 120 countries have agreed, through the extraordinarily rigorous International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process, that human activity is driving global warming. He also acknowledges that this consensus was recently confirmed by a report prepared for Congress by the National Academy of Scientists.


http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/26/wsj-gore/

 

Lindzen was a "lead author" of the IPCC. He has written opinion pieces in the Wall Street Journal telling how his scientific report was "modified" by political types writing the "executive summary" (which is all most people read), leaving out all the the uncertainties and caveats. Read the full IPCC report, as I have, and you might be surprised about how little scientists admit to knowing about climate - for example, they don't know what fraction of the small warming of the past century (0.6C ) is natural or anthropogenic - and of the anthropogenic part what fraction is greenhouse gasses. Mostly what they can't agree on is the feedback. Don't even know the sign of the feedback (positive or negative), whether a small increase in temperature caused by say change in type of clouds (or change in greenhouse gasses) - how much of this change is amplified (Positive Feedback) or reduced (Negative) Feedback. The most that the IPCC can say with any confidence is that they think they can detect a "discernable" amount of human influence. No big deal. Every time a forest is converted to farmland or vice versa there is a small effect of climate

A little less heat and a little more science study night help. And stay away from those advocacy groups like http://thinkprogress.org/ which have an agenda. Check where their money is coming from. I bet some can be traced back to George Soros.

 

More on Richard Lindzen, acknowledged by those in the atmospheric sciences as the brightest of the bright. A true scientist who doesn't have an agenda - his only goal is to seek the "truth" in the finest tradition of the greats scientists of the past. Lindzen is such a man. Here is his most recent arcticle.

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Lindzen/no_consensus.html

 

The movie will be here tomorrow!!! Can't wait to see it!

 

Rather than watching the Gore film which is pure bunkum, go here to see five short videos (about 5 minutes each)

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3



"Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change"
Part 1 (4:20 minutes)
Windows Media (4.76MB) | Quicktime (9.52MB)
Part 2 (6:21 minutes)
Windows Media (16.3MB) | Quicktime (14.2MB)
Part 3 (3:26 minutes)
Windows Media (7.82MB) | Quicktime (7.59MB)
Part 4 (5:10 minutes)
Windows Media (12.4MB) | Quicktime (11.4MB)
Part 5 (5:02 minutes)
Windows Media (5.45MB) | Quicktime (11MB)


Climate Experts Speak Out in New Video - Science underlying Kyoto Protocol seriously flawed

 

I don't mind you having your own opinion and feel no need to try to change yours. I sense you are looking for someone to debate. I'm sure you are finding good opponents on other sites.

 

I'm going to see the movie before I form an opinion.

But it didn't seem overwhelmingly scientific from the clips I've seen of it He seems to suggest the antarctic is in danger of melting, which isn't true.

People do need to be aware of climate shifts, and the likely impact industrialization is having on the climate.

 

Good. It's a good movie, and if you disagree with it - at least you saw it and are informed of what it's about.

My question is, how do we know that what you are spouting as "truth" is not "bunkum" itself?

 

I just saw that last night with a friend. It was really sad, and actually pretty interesting. I sort of half expected some of it to be pretty boring, but it wasn't.

 

What would be the motive for those who contend there is no global warming?What would be the motive for those who say there is global warming?From those who are concerned there is global warming=concern for the earth and all for whom earth is home.From those who deny there is global warming=money.Simple to me.

 

I started reading a book called "Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths" edited by Ronald Bailey. I couldn't finish it because I have other reading I must accomplish first....I digress. The point is, for as far as I got into, they were claiming it as a response to capitalism - people touting global-warming. It is simply a play on a new economic system that will eventually edge out the capitalism these people hold so near and dear to their heart.

Sad really. They seem to miss the point that global warming is bad, and if we don't make any changes now - there will be no money to go around and earn.

 

Look at it this way.If the scientists that are trying to prove global warming is happening are wrong--no harm done.If the opposite is true---what then?

 

If they are wrong, then they have wasted millions upon millions of dollars. But it wouldn't be the first time the government wasted money for some dead-end project.

If it's true, then I agree with whoever said it here - they will only get their wake up call when their hair catches on fire.

 

Its pretty sad that Americans need to see a movie to understand global warming.

 

WELL,IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SAY THIS,BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE EARTH,i SAY ERR ON THE SIDE OF(SHUDDER--CONSERVATISM).Didn't mean to holler--to lazy to re-type.

 

The movie was excellent. The theater we were in was full and this surprised me. I think it really opened dh's eyes. It presented a lot of statistics that I wasn't aware of, in a way that no one should be able to ignore. It addressed the skeptics head on.
I recommend it to everyone, no matter how much you think you know one way or the other.

 

just saw this, it was very well done! I know a lot of people who have different political views than Gore are concerned that this film would be biased. it really wasn't though, he presented the facts very clearly and scientifically.

 

gore has done alot of good things... he also invented the internet which is making all of us communicating possible

 

I just saw this movie also and it was good.... also got me thinking of how things might have been different if Gore would have won or been allowed to win in 2000, but that is a different story (well, kinda)