Posted on 07/12/2006 9:42:12 PM PDT by byteback
To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that island land, which is depicted so ominously in Gore’s movie.
In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming. They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don’t know why.
The other elements of the global-warming scare scenario are predicated on similar oversights. Malaria, claimed as a byproduct of warming, was once common in Michigan and Siberia and remains common in Siberia — mosquitoes don’t require tropical warmth.
Hurricanes, too, vary on multidecadal time scales; sea-surface temperature is likely to be an important factor. This temperature, itself, varies on multidecadal time scales. Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can’t attribute any particular hurricane to global warming.
A general characteristic of Gore’s approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended — at least not in terms of the actual science.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
"The Facts Are In!!!"
None other than
Al Gore &
ARnold Schwarzenegger
agree on that
when it comes to
Global Warming.
I hope Arnold is just playing to the loons here in CA. Folks I talk to see movies and think it's reality. It's part of living in Cali!
...
Ping
Lenin had a great word to describe this. He called it "agitprop," or agitation propoganda. The usefulness of agitprop is that it inflames the emotions and diverts the attention of the masses from other issues that might slow down the progress of socialist inevitability. (Many thanks to my leftist profs for teaching me this, thereby immunizing me from the impact of agitprop.) The weather is a perfect platform for agitprop. Any unusual weather pattern can be vaguely linked to global warming, contributing to a sense of uneasiness about whether or not global warming is "the truth." Al Gore's film is a great example of heightening emotions about the issue - and when the unease turns to panic as something very unusual happens, like a category 5 storm bearing down on New York, or a century-long drought in California (both of which have happened in the past), the left will be waiting to provide the "solution," which, of course, has actually very little to do with climate per se. As a tool for the left, global warming's value as agitprop is actually quite brilliant, since most people only see the minor fluctuations of the weather in their own lives and locations and know very little about the geological history of the planet. I must write a thank-you note to Lenin. </sarcasm>
Check this site out: www.FriendsOfScience.org
Also see Michael Crihtons book "State of Fear"
bump for later
I wish Richard Feynman were alive to weigh in on this..
D-fendr wrote:
> I wish Richard Feynman were alive to weigh in on this.<
Ditto for Rush's old favorite, Dixie Lee Ray!
The keys to the debate on global warming lie in posing three questions:
1-How have you come to rule out natural climate change as a possible cause?
2-How have you mangaged to rule out solar activity? (Mars is warming)
3-If warming is exclusively caused by CO2, can you explain to me how, of the approximate one degree temperature change during the twentieth century, approximately three-fourths of it occurred prior to 1940?
Boy, between this and the Katrina thread you might just have a stroke before the end of the day. Wound tight, ain't ya hoss.
What about the sun? Solar output is by no means constant and we know that the sun goes through cyclical periods of higher and lower output. To assume that human action by increasing CO2 is the cause could only be demonstrated if 1. solar output were constant over the measurement period or 2.the variance of solar output was compensated for in the model. I don't see either in Gore's rantings.
So get out there and lead, bro. Ditch the car, get a bike, turn out the lights, turn off the computer.
Until then you personally are adding to the ruin with full knowledge of doing so. How can you live with yourself? If this is such a problem, don't sit around using electricity complaining about carbon dioxide, do something about your awful lifestyle.
I do. Everyday. And more than just my own actions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.