Leading Global Warming Skeptic changes mind after watching Al Gore Speak
 

How the evidence for anthropogenic global warming has converged to cause this environmental skeptic to make a cognitive flip
By Michael Shermer

In 2001 Cambridge University Press published Bjørn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist, which I thought was a perfect debate topic for the Skeptics Society public lecture series at the California Institute of Technology. The problem was that all the top environmental organizations refused to participate. "There is no debate," one spokesperson told me. "We don't want to dignify that book," another said. One leading environmentalist warned me that my reputation would be irreparably harmed if I went through with it. So of course I did.

My experience is symptomatic of deep problems that have long plagued the environmental movement. Activists who vandalize Hummer dealerships and destroy logging equipment are criminal ecoterrorists. Environmental groups who cry doom and gloom to keep donations flowing only hurt their credibility. As an undergraduate in the 1970s, I learned (and believed) that by the 1990s overpopulation would lead to worldwide starvation and the exhaustion of key minerals, metals and oil, predictions that failed utterly. Politics polluted the science and made me an environmental skeptic.
More..

http://www.congregator.net/medicalne...tjen/gobie.htm

this article was written 5 years ago

Multi
 

How true.


The proof really is in the puddin' on this..


It's all about jobs for the over achieving academics without a sellable skill.

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
 

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...ming020507.htm

The theory of Global Warming has become a vested interest. Lots of people owe their jobs to the theory and will do what it takes to continue feeding at the trough of fear. Not unusual of course.

If and when a global cooling trend begins in the latter part of this century and the environmentalists all start taking credit for it, there'll be no living with them. There's nothing more annoying than a fool who thinks he's a hero.

Why?
Because you'll believe anything.

And also it is much easier for governments to control populations if said popilations constantly have something to disagree over and be afraid of.

There's no better proof that global warming is no longer a matter of science than what you just said, RDixon.

climate change will be only a part of the major earth changes that will happen before the end of this century ,we could be in for a shift in the earth's axis and a whole bunch more fun stuff

global warming is so 90's these days
it's become sort of a stale debate imo
too much energy being put into
cutting emissions that might only help a little..
too little too late

but preparing for world wide events that are becoming more and more of certainty every day
could go a long way

it has never been a matter of science.

Dire consequences for Canada...NOT!!!!


Several documentaries that pertained to global warming and climate change were broadcast across Canada during the final week of June 2006. Recent discoveries concerning the geological and climate history of Canada have indicated that Southern Canada may have been a subtropical rainforest during an earlier time period while the average annual temperature of the Arctic may have been above the freezing point of water. If the global warming theory is valid, it will merely reintroduce to Canada the kind of climate that actually existed in its distant past. A future generation of Canadians may actually be able to adapt to living in that kind of climate and utilize the advantages that it may have to offer.



http://www.quebecoislibre.org/06/060702-2.htm

A radical shift in the earth's axis is unlikely, but a reversal in its magnetic polarity could be underway. Some people think it will happen within the next 5 years. Of course since nobody really knows why we even have a magnetic field, and why it varies in strength, flips polarity, and migrates geographically, it's next to impossible to predict what will actually happen.

http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/20...2007-01-11.cfm

You're almost as bad claiming nobody knows something when they do as you are claiming you know something when you don't. When are you going to stop your pretentious proclamations and adopt a standard of ethics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory
I recently watch a lecture on mass extinction events with a sidenote that a low angular cometary impact could spin the crust/mantle in relation to the core and shear off the convection currents that produce the magnetic field resulting in a period of low field strength and geologic evidence indicate just that scenario once occurred.

Theory: Unproven. Could be true, but also may not be.



Everything you think you know is wrong.

So what you're saying is that someone knows exactly what's going on and that future changes in the earth's magnetic field are readily predictable? You'd be the first to make that claim.

Well I guess nobody knows why the weather changes then.

We call these systems chaotic because they cannot be predicted with certainty beyond a short time span and because they are acted upon by variables that we are not aware of. Nobody knows why we had such a violent hurricane season two years ago followed by such a tame season last year. It's impossible to predict whether a storm forming off the cost of Africa will eventually destroy New Orleans, let alone what a whole hurricane season will be like. I think it's safe to say we really don't understand the weather. In all likelihood we will understand it eventually, but today the best we can do is hire glorified bookies to quote statistical probabilities.

Al Gore invented weather.

You just can't stop yourself can you?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_At...rricane_season

That is very true. But the problem is that global warming (or lack thereof) is a scientific issue. The “proof” for global warming is being touted as scientifically proven fact when it is not.

I don't think we should knowingly do things that have strongly negative environmental impact.

Similarly, I do not think junk science disinformation should be allowed to set public policies, especially when the result is to stifle development and injure the economy. For example, environmental concerns are the main reason the U.S. can’t produce enough domestic oil and this in turn results on dependance upon foreign oil. Dependance on foreign oil (from the middle east) helps fund the jihad terrorism against us.

In 2005, fifteen hurricanes formed and a number of them made landfall, some causing horrendous damage. We listened to the global warming activists tell us in 2005 that more of the same was to come with severe hurricanes becoming more frequent and more powerful.

The real world experience did not verify the "doom-and-gloom" preaching. The 2006 hurricane season yielded only six hurricanes, NONE of which made landfall in the U.S..

Another indicator global warming activists tout is diminishing volume of polar ice. Some of the information in this area is contradictory. There is apparently scientific evidence that the antarctic ice is actually growing, not diminishing.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V9/N45/C2.jsp

Or, how about The Weather Channel (TWC) "climate expert" Dr. Heidi Cullen, who wants the American Meteorological Society to de-certify any broadcast meteorologist who fails to beat the "catastrophic global warming is caused by human activity" drum.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...a-88824bb8e528

Junk science is not real science. Scepticism and making a scientific theory stand up to it is a normal, healthy and necessary part of the scientific process. It is supposed to prevent junk science from being adopted as scientifically supported fact.

The lack of tolerance for alternate viewpoints that is being expressed could probably be described as scientific evidence that they are not being scientific.

As such, the theory itself comes under serious question as to its validity.

Let me rephrase (or backpedal, whichever the case may be): After such a violent hurricane season in 2005 nobody at the time could have predicted that the 2006 season would be so tame.

I'm relatively sure that with thousands of meteorologists studying various data and forming different conclusions that one or more did predict a mild 2006 hurricane season.



But you're just steering away from your compulsion to make proclamations based on ignorance. People know what causes geomagnetic fields and many other things even if you don't.

You're relatively sure that somebody accurately guessed the weather? Since you're no better informed on the subject than me your relative sureness carries just about as much weight as my so called 'proclamations.' We're both making assumptions, albed, but if you think someone predicted this last hurricane season you'll have to dig up the proof yourself.

I'm not skeptical of science, I'm skeptical of humanity's ability to fully understand chaotic systems on a global scale. If someone predicted this hurricane season then they got lucky, they beat the odds, nothing more. Unless and until meteorology gives us the ability to make detailed predictions about next season's weather, my skepticism will not be challenged. So far the most detailed prediction anyone can make is that sometime between the months of August and November tropical storms of varying intensity will form in the mid Atlantic. Of what use is such vague information to anyone?

All too easy.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/hurr...forecast_x.htm
You just can't seem to grasp that other people aren't as ignorant as you.

Just as I suspected, almost all the 'scientists' got it wrong. Thanks for proving my point.

Your point(s) - What was proven -

You're not only ignorant but unethical.

So will you pay the EU tax!? Yes you will, weather you like it or not.

http://coldfury.com/index.php/?p=7816

"...a whip of political correctness strangles their voice."
 

President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity

Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl

Al Gore - Energy Pig

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/...article_id=367

I don't really understand why so many people are skeptical of global warming or climate change. It's really very simple. Here are some facts.
1) Our climate is always changing. It just happens very slowly.
2)Global warming and cooling are always happening. The earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling throughout it's history.
3)Carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse" gas and humans are pumping tons of the stuff into the air daily.

I just don't understand whats so debatable. Maybe how much humans actually contibute to global warming. We certainly do contribute to the changing of our climate. It's a matter of how much impact we want to have. I personally would like to leave the world less polluted for my children and grandchildren. I don't want to leave a mess for them to clean up. I don't want to leave the next generations a fucked up world because I couldn't make a few simple changes to my personal lifestyle.

You're right on all three points, Vernarial. But consider this: water vapor, the most potent greenhouse gas, is also the one greenhouse gas over which we humans have almost no control. For that reason the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change considers it prudent to completely ignore the effects of water vapor on climate change. That's not just unscientific, it's plain stupid. But this is typical of environmentalism; it is unthinking, unquestioning, and paranoid. I am not skeptical of climate change, I'm skeptical of the doomsday predictions these people preach from their academic cathedrals.

Skepticism is healthy, it keeps us from jumping to conclusions and, if sufficiently widespread, it prevents mobs from forming, mobs like the "consensus" among scientists that has transubstantiated global warming from a scientific field of research into a religious dogma. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the desire to make the environment more livable and more comfortable, but people shouldn't make the mistake of building belief structures around that desire, especially ones that claim to be scientific.

Though you may consider yourself an environmentalist, Vern, you're not like most of them from what I can tell. You're more of an environmental steward like me. Unlike you, though, I don't see any use in overstating the problem. This sense of urgency we're subject to isn't due to continuing increases in emissions but to our own short life spans. Because none of us will live long enough to affect substantial, positive change in the environment in our lifetimes, we all feel the need to cause drastic changes before we bequeath the earth to our children. This is the natural response to our own sense of mortality, but it's also the worst possible way to approach the problem. The best solution is not a one time fix, it's a perpetual process, one which future generations can continue after we're gone. And in order for us to discover that solution we must trust that future generations will be able to decide on their own what's best for them. The current environmentalist movement doesn't see things this way, unfortunately.

You gonna quit breathing? Yeah you're contributing to the buildup of CO2 every time you exhale you selfish hypocrite.

As for me, I don't think it's bad to have a warmer planet. But notice how the alarmists have lately tried to replace the term "global warming" with "climate change" in order to manipulate people who think that way.

There's a long history of petty power seekers using excuses like global warming to get themselves the power they crave. The Kyoto Treaty would have had an insignificant affect on global warming but they take every opportunity to use it against their political opponents.

Nuclear power could have reduce the possibility of global warming significantly along with a lot of pollution if petty politicians hadn't used opposition to it as a stepping stone to power.

More recently the blocking of new oil field development has not only increased the price of oil but also the use of coal with its much greater environmental impact.

In short, the more the power hungry rabble rousers meddle in the natural course of economics the worse they make the world. And they've got a lot of meddling planned for global warming.

I would consider this to be more than just a simple change. I have made a few simple changes that haven't really affected my lifestyle and plan on making more changes in the future.

Maybe none of us individually can affect any substantial positive change, but if more people made the little changes we could have a substantian positive effect. I'm not talking about drastic sudden changes. I'm talking about Us(human race) as stewards over our one and only planet. We need to take a little better care is all. There are some small solutions we can implement on a personal level that will start to help. I trust future generations to know better the problem and it's solutions, but I am not willing to just sit and wait for them to fix our(and previous generations) mess. If we have some limited knowledge of the problem and can see some minor solutions that might help the problem I don't see why we should sit on our hands waiting for the next generation to implement. Sure we should let them decide whats best for them, but they don't know yet. It's like a parent who doesn't make his kid clean his room hoping that someday that child will decide that a clean room is best for him.

So what are these secret changes? If you can't do the math and figure what difference it would make if everyone did them I can help you.


I suspect it wouldn't amount to squat though and you're only doing some bragging for yourself rather than something worthwhile for the environment.

Anyone who utters a syllable of argument against this point of view and is still able to refer to themselves as a "conservative" with a straight face is either a fool, a liar, or both.

Originally Posted by vernarial
We certainly do contribute to the changing of our climate. It's a matter of how much impact we want to have. I personally would like to leave the world less polluted for my children and grandchildren. I don't want to leave a mess for them to clean up. I don't want to leave the next generations a fucked up world because I couldn't make a few simple changes to my personal lifestyle.




I sure agree about this.

Let us try to keep this personal, like doing our best to not consume.

Like changing my lightbulbs to flourescent. Like walking or riding a bike to work instead of driving. Like being a bit picky about whose products I buy. Simple easy things.

Each of those things have economic benefits as well. There is no one alive who doesn't want to reduce their electric bills and make fewer visits to the gas station. Given their druthers, most people would volunteer to do such things and you're proof.

The thing is that industrial and commercial energy usage and pollution is at least twice that of non-commercial/household energy usage and pollution. You and all your neighbors could turn on all your appliances and leave all the lights in your houses burning 24/7 and the power company wouldn't notice much. You probably don't even use as much electricity in a whole year as Google uses to power its many data centers in just one week. If every American made the changes to their lifestyles that you've made it would be a good start, but lets not kid ourselves. Guilt alone will not carry us far enough to solve the real problems we're facing. Keep on keeping on if it make you happy, but only industrial sized changes are going to make a difference.

Seems like the simple easy things you'd do even if there weren't environmental benefits. To be sure, just how far is the walk to work?

The strongest "proof' touted for global warming is the measurement of the antarctic ice mass. Whether it is shrinking or growing depends on which group of scientists you ask. It can't be getting smaller and larger at the same time.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V9/N45/C2.jsp

Remember it does not take any credentials or any particular level of education be be a "scientist". All you have to do to be a scientist is (allegedly) follow the principles of scientific investigation. Some do it better than others.

I still laugh at the "picture" the Onion had of Al Gore taking a flame thrower to the Ross Ice shelf. For those who missed it, I'll post it again. Funny Stuff.

That pic would be funnier if there was a manbearpig in it.

.

That is too true, Mazer. Sadly it is alot harder to get any changes in industrial and commercial energy usage and pollution. Believe me I try to. I send letters to my reps all the time concerning environmental issues.

It's only a mile and a half, Albed. I don't expect everyone to make the same changes, but everyone can make some small changes.

Heck everyone should make that change just to reduce the internal engine corrosion short distance driving causes.


If you want to stop industrial pollution boycott their products.

There are plenty of pollution control laws already and if you know some are being broken then you have a basis for a lawsuit.

If you expect a government representative to do something without giving him money or gathering numerous supporters you're wasting your time.

in fucking deed!

and those pics drak posted are hillaryarious. lol

You folks in the U.K. better start preparing yourselves for the big "Global Warming Tax Pingo"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

Ah, a fine day of xc-skiing two days before spring. I want a refund on my global warming tax.



Still Waiting For Greenhouse (A Lukewarm View Of Global Warming)

Glad To Here It

Here they are closing the resorts early. I'm not saying it's because global warming, but this is the warmest year I remember. The globe must be warmer(at least in my area) this year.

Damn, lower 80's today. The weather sure is changing fast now. Better hurry and get the air conditioner in the window.

Even the liberal mass media gave a brief squawk about the criticism of Al Gore's energy gluttony. But they wouldn't even make a peep about another public figures energy consumption.


http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...ming022807.htm

You can't argue with science.

It's Easter and it's snowing like it's Christmas. Temperatures in Hawaii have reached record lows. How does that figure?

Surely, the world must be coming to an end. :RE:

Yeah we got a couple inches of snow here in PA. The global warming dimwits will just have to keep quiet until a heat wave hits or get the derisive laughter they deserve.

How's the "warmer" in your area now?


About 20*F colder than normal for the last 2 weeks where I live. I'm not saying it's because of global cooling but this is the coldest spring I remember.

I used to look forward to global warming ending winter earlier but it's not working out.

The weather guys all predicted a foot of snow for Friday last week. We didn't get any. Then they predicted rain all day yesterday and this morning. It didn't start raining until after midnight and we got a total of half an inch at my house. I'm not saying meteorologists are any worse than astrologers at predicting the weather but... Oh wait, yes I am.

Funny that it just appears as a testament to your self-centered short-sightedness and a willful ignorance about what the effects of global warming could actually be to argue it based on local cold weather.

Hello. Global Warming 101. Enough cold fresh water flowing into the North Atlantic (a basic ramification of global warming) could cause changes in the gulf stream and other ocean currents which keep North America and Europe relatively warm and would lead to a disruption of weather patterns and, ultimately, the seasons themselves. Global warming would actually mean freakish weather and an increasingly cold climate.

You might try to grasp this basic concept before pretending to be incredulous experts.

NASA researchers used computer simulation models to analyze observed temperature changes on Mars over time.The model showed that the surface temperature of Mars has increased by about 1.17 degrees Fahrenheit over two decades. Mars’ southern polar ice caps are melting.

I think it is Bush's fault. Maybe there is a chance it is Al Gore's since he uses 20 times more energy then the average American.

Wow, observing the weather makes people "incredulous experts" to Ramona!


I always laughed when I read or heard the global warming proselytizers try to convince people that colder weather might be caused by....global warming. How weak minded do people have to be to believe that?

About as much as Ramona apparently.


They've got it all covered: drought-global warming, floods-global warming, heat wave-global warming, and now; cold wave-global warming. Just a test of faith and the willingness to mindlessly accept the dogma.

Ramona passes.

I'm well aware of the thermohaline cycle and the effects of global warming upon it, and I can explain it much better than Al Gore did in his documentary; his explanation was overly simplistic. (Lord, I hope you're not basing your explanation on that Roland Emmerich movie. :no:) You're mistaking informed skepticism on my part (and maybe albed's) for willful ignorance. Are you doing it on purpose? It's true I'm known to shoot from the hip when I don't have all the information, but do you actually believe that I've consciously chosen to avoid the available data on global warming? You know better than to make that assumption.

My own observations of local weather, though circumstantial, are valid: they highlight the inability of computer models to accurately predict precipitation and cloud cover more than a week in advance. The main concern over global warming stems from anticipated changes to the hydrologic cycle, mainly the various positive and negative feedback loops that occur when increased temperatures accelerate ocean surface evaporation. Water vapor, depending on what phase it takes on in the air, is either the most potent greenhouse gas or the best sunlight deflector on Earth. As water vapor concentrations increase, the greenhouse effect will strengthen while the amount of sunlight reaching the earth decreases. So far it is unknown whether these two effects will cancel each other out and to what degree, and computer models are of no help because they're terrible at simulating the hydrologic cycle.

The models that meteorologists use to predict local weather are related to the models climatologists use to predict regional and global climate change, and they suffer the same limitations. You can tell that a particular global climate model is deeply flawed when it inaccurately predicts precipitation rates around the world, and most of today's models do not agree with actual observations, let alone each other. Though climate models are becoming more complex and more accurate every year, they still cannot reliably predict changes to our climate more than a few years in advance.

It isn't global warming I'm skeptical of, it's the idea that policy should be based on the results of these flawed climate models. Reducing carbon emissions isn't as easy as screwing in a compact fluorescent light bulb, you know. The AGW alarmists would have us all make drastic changes to our lifestyles and keep developing nations living in the stone age.