Leading Global Warming Skeptic changes mind after watching Al Gore Speak

[multi]

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..

[floydian slip]

Gorbachev, Maurice strong and Al Gore are referred to as "The Three Musketeers" of the environmental movement. It appears that the environmental situation is being used along with instilling the fear of biological warfare in order to further the one world agenda. Gorbachev states " The environmental crisis is the cornerstone for the New World Order" Maurice strong ( U.N. environmental leader ) was quoted as saying, " Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" James Garrison ( President of the Gorbachev Foundation ) says " we are going to end up with world government. It's inevitable... There's going to be conflict, coercion and consensus. That's all part of what will be required as we give birth to the first global civilization."

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

this article was written 5 years ago

[Nicobie]

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.

[floydian slip]

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

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

[napho]

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.

[Mazer]

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.

[RDixon]

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.

[Mazer]

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

[multi]

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

[RDixon]

Originally Posted by Mazer

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

it has never been a matter of science.

[napho]

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

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by multi

we could be in for a shift in the earth's axis and a whole bunch more fun stuff

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

[albed]

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

Dynamo theory describes the process through which motion of a conductive body in the presence of a magnetic field acts to regenerate that magnetic field. This theory is used to explain the presence of anomalously long-lived magnetic fields in astrophysical bodies.

In the case of the Earth, the magnetic field is believed to be caused by the convection of molten iron, within the outer liquid core, along with a Coriolis effect caused by the overall planetary rotation that tends to organize currents in rolls aligned along the north-south polar axis.

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.

[RDixon]

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



Everything you think you know is wrong.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by albed

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?

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.

[albed]

Well I guess nobody knows why the weather changes then.

[Mazer]

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.

[floydian slip]

Al Gore invented weather.

[albed]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Nobody knows why we had such a violent hurricane season two years ago followed by such a tame season last year.

You just can't stop yourself can you?



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

in 2006, a rapidly-forming El Niño event, combined with the pervasive presence of the Saharan Air Layer over the tropical Atlantic and a steady presence of a robust secondary high related to the Azores high centered around Bermuda, contributed to a slow season and all tropical cyclone activity ceasing after October 2.

[Drakonix]

it has never been a matter of science.

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.