First, science has evolved over 30 years so theories probably will change. In 30 more years they may have established definitively the threat, or they may have proved it the other way.
The sophistication of the technology and the ability to monitor these things has obviously improved since 30 years ago. So, I would expect that theories will change and terms will change.
Second, your exaggerations are laughable. Every single change in temp is proof, yup, that's what happening. No science here, just some guy in Idaho watching a thermometer and calling out 'CLIMATE CHANGE' every time the temp raises and drops.
People have spent a lot of time trying to prove it's a man made event, if you disagree fine. Don't say "prove it" to everyone else like some climatologist perusing the board is going to come on and post an explanation. Go forth and find some evidence yourself and get back to us. Then we shall summon our climatologist to answer, instead of making stupid generalizations.
Below is something I copied off the net that highlight the story:
"A UK judge has ruled that schools are allowed to show Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, but only if the film is accompanied by guidance highlighting the areas where the ex-vice president of America strays off the scientific terra firma, the BBC reports.
Mr Justice Burton said teachers could show the film, but must highlight nine assertions in the film that are not supported by mainstream scientific consensus, including a claim that polar bears are drowning on long swims between icebergs."
Below is a link to an article that shows the nine errors in Al's movie according to the judge.
-- Modified on 10/13/2007 12:30:50 PM
Al Gore versus Judge Barton. Both world renowned experts on the climate I'm sure. As scientists they're the too that should be deciding what children see.
It's good though that they're trying to present a balanced understanding of possible problems. Kids should be aware of the movie and what some think is on the horizon, and that others refute the claim. Hopefully the kids learn about it, and when they're old enough take the time to learn and make their own educated decision.
In the US, the decision would be to either not show it at all, or show it unedited with no disclaimer depending upon the educator's personal beliefs.
You know what movie they should show kids, 'Requiem for A Dream', I doubt any kid would do drugs after seeing that horror story. It didn't stop me, but I was already a lost cause. 
Because you're a Swift Boat boy?
Hmmm, guess these people don't know what they're talking about then...
"A message from the melting slopes of Everest: The sons of Hillary and Tenzing speak out about climate change. "Believe us, it's a reality"
By Cahal Milmo, Sam Relph and Nigel Morris, The UK Independent, 6 July 2007
Fifty-four years after Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay became the first men to scale Everest, their sons have said the mountain is now so ravaged by climate change that they would no longer recognize it.
On the eve of the Live Earth concerts this weekend, Peter Hillary and Jamling Tenzing yesterday issued a timely warning that global warming is rapidly changing the face of the world's highest mountain and threatening
the survival of billions of people who rely on its glaciers for drinking water.
The base camp where Sir Edmund and Norgay began their ascent is 40 meters lower than it was in 1953. The glacier on which it stands, and those around it, are melting at such a rate that scientists believe the mountain, whose
Nepalese name, Qomolangma, means Mother of the World, could be barren rock by 2050.
Up to 40,000 Sherpas who live at the base of the Himalayas face devastation if vast new lakes formed by the melted ice burst and send a torrent of millions of tons of water down the slopes.
Mr Hillary, who has himself twice reached Everest's summit, said: "Climate change is happening. This is a fact. Base camp used to sit at 5,320 meters. This year it was at 5,280 meters because the ice is melting from the top and
side. Base camp is sinking each year. For Sherpas living on Mount Everest this is something they can see every day but they can't do anything about it
on their own."
The warning came as a survey revealed that most Britons remain unconvinced about the extent of climate change and that terrorism, crime, graffiti and even dog mess are more pressing issues for the UK. The Ipsos-Mori poll found that 56 per cent of people believe scientists are still debating whether human activity is contributing to climate change. In reality, there is virtual consensus that it is.
Just over half of people, 51 per cent, believe climate change will have little or no effect and more than one-third admitted they were taking
no action to reduce their carbon emissions.
Speaking before the seven Live Earth concerts, which organizers hope will be a catalyst for action on global warming, Jamling Tenzing, who has also climbed Everest, said the mountain was serving as an early warning of the extent to which it is already changing the planet.
The glacier where Sir Edmund and Norgay pitched their base camp before eventually reaching the summit at 29,000ft on 29 May 1953 has retreated
three miles in the past 20 years. Scientists believe that all glaciers in the Himalayas, which are between half a mile and more than three miles
in length, will be reduced to small patches of ice within 50 years if trends continue.
Mr Tenzing said: "The glaciers have receded a great deal since my father's time. There are many things he wouldn't recognize today. The glacier on
which base camp sits has melted to such a degree that it is now at a lower altitude. I think the whole face of the mountain is changing."
The glacial retreat presents a double peril for those who live in the Himalayas and the populations of India and China, where the water flowing from the mountains accounts for 40 per cent of the world's fresh water.
The rapid increase in the rate of glaciers melting - from 42 meters a year in the 40 years to 2001 to 74 meters a year in 2006 - has resulted in the
formation of huge lakes in the space of a few years.
A United Nations study of the 9,000 glacial lakes in the Himalayas found that more than 200 are at risk of "outburst floods", unleashing thousands of
cubic meters of water per second into an area where 40,000 people live. In 1985, Lake Dig Tsho in the Everest region released 10 million cubic
meters of water in three hours. It caused a 10-meter-high wall of water which swept away a power station, bridges, farmland, houses, livestock and people up to 55 miles downstream. Scientists estimate that the most dangerous lakes today are up to 20 times bigger. One of those, Imja Tsho, did not exist 50 years ago and lies directly above the homes of 10,000 people.
The worst-case scenario according to Nepalese scientists is a cascade effect whereby one overflowing lake empties into another, starting a chain reaction which would kill thousands and wipe out agriculture for generations.
Peter Hillary said: "I've seen the result of glacial lakes bursting their banks and it's just catastrophic. It's like an atomic bomb has gone
off. Everywhere is rubble. The floods of the past are unfortunately nothing compared with the size of what we are currently threatened with."
In the longer term, scientists believe the depletion of the glaciers will drastically reduce the flow of water into the nine major rivers fed by the Himalayan glaciers.
An outspoken critic of President George Bush's approach to combating global warming has been appointed to advise the British Government on climate change. Bob Watson was voted out of his job chairing the United Nations-sponsored
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) five years ago after incurring the wrath of the Bush administration. He will take over as chief
scientific adviser at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in September. The appointment was approved by Gordon
Brown.
His recruitment, a week after Mr Brown took over as Prime Minister, will be seen as further evidence the Government is trying to distance itself from Mr Bush. Last week, he caused consternation at the White House when he appointed Sir Mark Malloch Brown, a strong critic of US foreign policy, as minister for Africa, Asia and the United Nations.
Dr Watson, a British-born expert on atmospheric pollution, advised former US President Bill Clinton on the environment and worked at the World Bank before becoming the IPCC's chairman. The US began maneuvering to remove him shortly after President Bush's inauguration in 2001. A year later, he was replaced by Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian scientist.
Environmental groups uncovered a memo from the US oil corporation Exxon Mobil, a major contributor to Mr Bush's election campaign, asking the White House to unseat Dr Watson because he had an "aggressive agenda". At the time, Dr Watson acknowledged the US government's intervention was
an "important factor" in the campaign to oust him.
A Defra spokeswoman said: "He was the unanimous choice out of all the candidates."
-- Modified on 10/13/2007 2:30:10 PM
What happened to GLOBAL WARMING! It's climate change now! 30 years ago we were supposed to be worried about GLOBAL COOLING! I guess we did such a good job then that we went too far correcting the problem and forced mother nature into the opposite direction?
Oh yea, sorry- it's NOT global warming it's climate change now. When you are losing the battle of ideas, change the subject and call it something that no one argues happens every day- yesterday it was 80 degrees. Today, I woke up and it was 82- uh oh, climate change! Whoops, just checked, it's down to 77 and OMG it's raining.
IT IS A FRAUD to put forth that whatever GLOBAL changes that may or may not occur are MAN MADE events. If you think so--PROVE IT. And of course you can't.
You joined TER in part to keep from getting scammed or ripped-off from money hungry providers or con artists posing as providers wanting your $$ and not providing service. You should employ the same skepticism to money hungry, power grabbing globalists that want to get in your pocket and control your behavior every time they put forth theses ridiculous and half-assed claims that they do. Don't be a SAP. Spend your money on well reviewed providers- if you give AL and friends your money, either the girl will be a NO SHOW or some ugly hag chick with a dick is going to show up at your hotel and want to fuck you up the ass.
-- Modified on 10/13/2007 3:38:16 PM
I don't know if global warming is a fraud or not.
What I do know is that the subject of the thread is "oops" getting caught making obvious misrepresentations.
So there it is, classic bait & switch. Don't know who to believe, but as between you & Gore, you've been eliminated, so what does that leave?
and quit trying to say I wrote it. I didn't write it, the Times did.
From The TimesOctober 11, 2007
Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter
Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment
Al Gore’s award-winning climate change documentary was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, a judge ruled yesterday.
An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinised in the High Court in London.
Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.
In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.
“It is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film,” he said in his ruling. “It is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-Presi-dent, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming.
“It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.”
The analysis by the judge will have a bearing on whether the Government can continue with its plan to have the film shown in every secondary school. He agreed it could be shown but on the condition that it was accompanied by new guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr Gore’s “one-sided” views.
The Government’s decision to show the film in secondary schools had come under attack from Stewart Dim-mock, a school governor in Kent and a member of political group the New Party, who accused the Government of brainwashing children.
The first mistake made by Mr Gore, said Mr Justice Burton in his written judgment, was in talking about the potential devastation wrought by a rise in sea levels caused by the melting of ice caps.
The claim that sea levels could rise by 20ft “in the near future” was dismissed as “distinctly alarmist”. Such a rise would take place “only after, and over, millennia”.
Mr Justice Burton added: “The ar-mageddon scenario he predicts, inso-far as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”
A claim that atolls in the Pacific had already been evacuated was supported by “no evidence”, while to suggest that two graphs showing carbon dioxide levels and temperatures over the last 650,000 years were an “exact fit” overstated the case.
Mr Gore’s suggestion that the Gulf Stream, that warms up the Atlantic ocean, would shut down was contradicted by the International Panel on Climate Change’s assessment that it was “very unlikely” to happen.
The drying of Lake Chad, the loss of Mount Kilimanjaro’s snows and Hurricane Katrina were all blamed by Mr Gore on climate change but the judge said the scientific community had been unable to find evidence to prove there was a direct link.
The drying of Lake Chad, the judge said, was “far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and overgrazing, and regional climate variability”. The melting of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was “mainly attributable to human-induced climate change”.
The judge also said there was no proof to support a claim that polar bears were drowning while searching for icy habitats melted by global warming. The only drowned polar bears the court was aware of were four that died following a storm.
Similarly, the judge took issue with the former Vice-President of the United States for attributing coral bleaching to climate change. Separating the direct impacts of climate change and other factors was difficult, the judgment concluded.
Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.
In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”
The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.
-- Modified on 10/13/2007 4:00:37 PM
Are you that dense? It was a joke. Even if it were not a joke, and I actually thought you were Lewis Smith, why would that link matter? Because if you were Lewis Smith (which I know you're not) you wouldn't actually have the article posted anywhere online?
as it misrepresents what oops said.... and what was contained within the article to which oops provided the link.
Yea, if you don't like what someone said, make up stuff that you can use to say that they are a bigot. or worse...
Way to piss people off CD! and please don't hide behind an alias. it's so chickenshit.
are all bigots and bad for the hobby!
Can I have some of the stuff you're smoking?
Charlie Sheen and his hollywood buddies could certainly be accused of driving up prices.
First, science has evolved over 30 years so theories probably will change. In 30 more years they may have established definitively the threat, or they may have proved it the other way.
The sophistication of the technology and the ability to monitor these things has obviously improved since 30 years ago. So, I would expect that theories will change and terms will change.
Second, your exaggerations are laughable. Every single change in temp is proof, yup, that's what happening. No science here, just some guy in Idaho watching a thermometer and calling out 'CLIMATE CHANGE' every time the temp raises and drops.
People have spent a lot of time trying to prove it's a man made event, if you disagree fine. Don't say "prove it" to everyone else like some climatologist perusing the board is going to come on and post an explanation. Go forth and find some evidence yourself and get back to us. Then we shall summon our climatologist to answer, instead of making stupid generalizations.
The burden of proof is on those that put forth such thoeries as MAN is the agent causing GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE...These people want to burden trillions of $$ onto taxpayers and consumers for a "theory" whose name needs to be changed because the original can't be proven. But "climate change".-- now there's an idea that the public can see. Temperatures change and then a hurricane. Oh my, it must be true because there were tornados in the midwest yesterday..
This whole thing smells like a set up for a massive effort to take your money. Many here argue that the premise for an Iraqi invasion was a "lie" yet buy into this MAN MADE global warming/climate change propoganda without a second thought.
And it's nice to know people have spent a lot of time trying to prove it's a man made event. So what? This is how they make a living. Agenda driven people send them money to put forth research that scares the populace thus generating funding and a new cottage industry...SCAM 101.
Just because people spend a lot of time trying prove something doesn't make it so. Coca-Cola company spent a lot of time and millions of $$ trying to sell the idea that NEW COKE was better than the original- that worked out real well...A lot of people spend a lot of time trying to prove a lot of things that aren't so-- Perfect example is Jacko...
-- Modified on 10/13/2007 5:01:34 PM
Coca-Cola spent money test marketing and doing taste tests on New Coke and it actually did better than Coke Classic in taste tests. Do you think they just changed the flavor for the fun of it? All indications were that it was better. They didn't need to "sell it" because market reports showed it to be true. It failed because they underestimated brand loyalty. I guess they didn't realize that some people, like Conservatives, so blindly follow that they don't allow themselves to experience anything else. People like you probably never even tried New Coke, you just said it sucks and moved on!
So, anyone espousing a theory that climate change is dangerous has an agenda and there can't possibly be any validity behind the theory? No reason to investigate further, shows over, the other has scientists that say it isn't true, so they win!!!!
I guess your solution is that nobody should investigate global warming or climate change. Just accept that it's a big pattern, and that man couldn't possibly influence the climate and hope if it turns out to be true and we're in trouble the BIBLE can save us all!!!!!
your family, and all your predeceased relatives, for the LOW LOW LOW price of $39.95 each, plus shipping & handling (from India). That will be SURE to save you!!
And if that doesn't work, you'll always know in your heart that you were saved.
-- Modified on 10/13/2007 7:42:11 PM
"Market research" told them that those surveyed preferred the taste of the new formula. Market research did NOT tell them to change the original formula of Coca-Cola and then discontinue it. Market research asked surveyors if they would drink it as Coca-Cola and most said it they would even if it took some adjustment. Executives misinterpreted the data. There was not an enthusiasm by those surveyed to actually change the formula.
I'm all for research. Probe, investigate, study, write reports, put forth theories, knock yourself out. I do it all the time. But don't tell me that we know something to be true that we don't. And don't try to reorganize the global economy costing us untold $$ to suit an unproven theory that the "market researchers" couldn't sell as "global warming" so they changed the name to "climate change". An idea is an idea, not a fact. Based on Jacko's posts, I have an idea that he is an asshole. Doesn't make it true does it?
No, I see no EVIDENCE that man negatively impacts "GLOBAL" climate change. There is nothing happening on the global climate front that has not happened before.
-- Modified on 10/13/2007 8:37:11 PM
nothing that hasn't happened before - like the time when that FUCKING ASTEROID BLEW AWAY THE DINOSAURS!!
Asteroids have hit the earth before so were they to do so again, it would certainly be difficult to make the case that it was a MAN made event...Unless, of course, you have a theory that man made global warming now causes asteroids...
You sure are a clever one. Has anyone ever taught you how to make a persuasive argument? Would love to see evidence of that sometime in one of your posts.
New Coke tasted like fucking Pepsi, what it proves is the old adage. "Figures don't lie, but Liars figure"
Fraud(n)- intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.
Global climate change is a reality. The climate changes all over the globe every day. It has since the beginning of time. No one I know of disputes that. No one said that ice doesn't melt or that glaciers don't recede. Sometimes new glaciers form, imagine that in this time of global warming, I mean climate change.
The fraud is not that the climate changes or that Everest may be in an altered state from 40 years ago. The fraud is this notion that MAN is the agent causing this phenomena. There are a lot of people selling you on an idea- not an established fact. Adopting this idea and putting into practice the suggested remedies that the "experts" say need to be adopted may make you feel good but there is no evidence to conclude it will alter or change the path nature has set. But they will alter our nation's economic landscape with unneccesary regulations for business and increased costs for consumers and taxpayers. But what's another couple of bucks if it makes you feel good about yourself, right?
These protectors of the planet want power and they want your money. This has all the earmarks of the perfect scam- Just like the TV preachers who say send me money and you'll go to heaven. Hard to disprove the claim since you won't know if it works till your dead and gone, a little too late to get your money back. Who knows, you may end up in heaven after all but I kind of doubt it'll be because you wrote a check to get in...
1572. Actual fraud, within the meaning of this Chapter, consists in
any of the following acts, committed by a party to the contract, or
with his connivance, with intent to deceive another party thereto, or
to induce him to enter into the contract:
1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one
who does not believe it to be true;
2. The positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the
information of the person making it, of that which is not true,
though he believes it to be true;
3. The suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge
or belief of the fact;
4. A promise made without any intention of performing it; or,
5. Any other act fitted to deceive.
1573. Constructive fraud consists:
1. In any breach of duty which, without an actually fraudulent
intent, gains an advantage to the person in fault, or any one
claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the
prejudice of any one claiming under him; or,
2. In any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be
fraudulent, without respect to actual fraud.
Nice to see that not only is this a fraud as defined by Webster but a LEGAl one as well. Thanks, I wasn't going the legal route but it's nice to know it may very well apply...
Comparison to the teleevangelists is most appropriate - after all - both expect you to take things on faith!
Take a ordinary ice cube and put it in the sun and time how long it takes to melt half way and then time how long it takes to melt the other half..It is a scientific fact if there were no Humans on this planet base camp on Everest would still be lower than a hundred years ago..
Errors or exaggerations in particulars, but overall enough evidence for the right conclusion.
As for polar bears, their population is dropping-- whether it's from swimming too far, or lack of prey is quite another question. Probably it's more the latter.
I will note that Gore didn't win the Nobel Prize for science.
and I love it when you post "right conclusion"!?? as opposed to correct conclusion. Polar bears declining? yea, we now live in their territory - and that is what happens when mankind intrudes on the environment.
As to more severe hurricanes... if we continue to build on the beaches and such, they will sustain damage cause guess what - hurricanes will come ashore- nuttin new there!
The list of errors is just too long.....
But hey, fail to read anything - fail to understand the cyclical nature of climate change - hey fail to understand that we don't know shit about what makes climate change... and then - and only then can you mindlessly follow a student who achieved only a C- average in science courses while in college (and those were "Baby science courses at best) without shitting in your pants.
Many respected scientists disagree with GORE's conclusions... and the certainty that we cause global warming... but worse, he fails to use all facts available (especially when those facts fail to support his hypotheses) in his analysis - and THAT IS BAD SCIENCE!
findings of exaggeration, but as for his primary and overall findings, you say he's not credible.
Presumably, you don't see anything wrong with that.
1st, I wouldn't be citing a court for science. Courts are great for resolving specific individual disputes, but they are really not very good for science.
But I would sure not be paying attention to anybody who thought they can pick and choose results according to their gut feelings, including anybody citing the same source in contradictory ways.
on global climate change, I must confess, I am not a climatologist.
I however, do recognize that for his extrapolations to be correct, one has to ignore a lot of compelling data that suggest other outcomes. I do repect that many legit scientists DO support Gore's position, however, many do not. That is why his pronouncement of concensus, is nonsense.
melted out of the ice, when Canada finally has a new NW passage, the argument is over. Done. Kaput. You've lost. I know it's all bad science...
Fight another good fight tomorrow.
Z - let me explain it to you one more time. The left wing has seized this cause, and squash (very effectively) any dissent. And there are two - count em - TWO separate hypothesis in play here: 1) that we are on an irreversible path to global warming and 2) this path is manmade.
Now, becuase of this, the hysteria is that we can halt or reverse this - if only we would. The earth - within recorded history has undergone climate change before - GREENLAND Dude, was named GREENland because the vikings could GROW stuff there - they can't now.
MANY scientists have examined the data, and come to COMPLETELY different conclusions than Gore (at best a C- science student). And isn't that what it is all about - reasonable examination of ALL the data? and how do you explain the warming on Mars? or for that matter (since we have already contaminated Mars) Pluto?
Really Z.... most of the posters on this board with whom I disagree are at least well acquainted with the data, and choose to find fault with it. You? only skim information and parrot others. Have an original thought and look at any subject closer than an 11-year old would. Put forth an argument that has some substance. And read what I have stated - climate change is cyclical - you do know what cyclical is? right...
Do I fear global climate change? To some extent yes, but I want to know more about it, and Gore's the sky is falling concept ends that discovery process.
here are the things that your "pronouncement" does not take into account:
Changes in ocean currents (not due to "global warming")
Surface albedo and the causative cloud cover.
Increased solar activity.
so please, if you're gonna toss this stuff out, at least provide an analysis.
If you don't do that it doesn't matter what you read. If you could possibly stop your psychosis, put your thoughts here coherently.
It case you want to know, Bizzaro, I don't read your posts now. I look at the titles. Absolutely nothing else is useful-- to humanity.