NY Times plans Tuesday hit on Gore, Newsroom sources tell Drudge.

Drudge-NY Times ^ | 3-12-07 | Drudge

[Names Ash Housewares]

NY TIMES PLANS TUESDAY HIT ON GORE, NEWSROOM SOURCES TELL DRUDGE: 'Scientists argue that Gore's warnings are full of exaggerated claims and startling errors'... Developing..

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype

"Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.

But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”.."

[jwh_Denver]

LOL!

[gondramB]

>>The truth is that global warming as indicated by glaciers retreating and seas rising is a problem
-------
Bull! Do a simple experiment.

Fill a glass with ice and add water up to the very rim. The ice floats above the surface. does the water overflow the glass when the ice melts?<<

The glaciers in questions are either over a land mass like Antarctica, North America or Greenland or else they are on ice piled all the way to the sea bottom.

In these cases melting raises sea levels. Thermal expansion of water is a big factor too.

Here is a site sponsored by NASA, the NOAA and the National Science foundation - the bottom line is that at the current level of global temperature, most of the rise just comes from Greenland but if temperature projections are correct the problem will accelerate as thermal expansion and antarctic melt kicks in.

http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_level.html

[DCPatriot]

My cynicism says the Clinton Machine is behind this.

Keep Al busy on the sidelines and out of the campaign.

[mylife]

PHd=Piled high and deep

[firebrand]

Gondram has pointed out the politicization of the issue, which is a valid point.

And it is still a problem no matter what is causing it. There is an idea afloat to send giant sunshades to rotate at the Lagrange point and modify the heating effect of the sun. That is an interesting idea no matter what's causing the rise in temperature.

If people would spend a tenth of the time dealing with the problem that they spend going political on what should be a strictly scientific issue, we would have a chance of discussing the issue fairly.

[gondramB]

>>This is a political issue, not a scientific one, as the Czech president said last week. <<

It surely has become a political issue.

But man choosing to politicize something doesn't change whether the seas are rising and the deserts are expanding.

Al Gore cannot speed it up and deniers can't slow it down.

That why I focus on data from people like NASA who have been studying glacier mass balance long before global warming was a political issue.

[DCPatriot]

I wish Monica was a republican.

She'd be the ultimate weapon.

Our Cindy Sheehan.

[mylife]

And man caused this how?
If New Orleans flooded every spring when all the snow masses world wide melted and poured into the sea my reort would be that those people chose poorly when they decided were to build

[gondramB]

>>Gondram has pointed out the politicization of the issue, which is a valid point.

And it is still a problem no matter what is causing it. There is an idea afloat to send giant sunshades to rotate at the Lagrange point and modify the heating effect of the sun. That is an interesting idea no matter what's causing the rise in temperature.<<

It is not impossible that the problem will become severe enough that invoking a mild nuclear winter will become one the few viable choices.

I suspect Mr. Gores friends won't like that - they don't even like using nuclear power to reduce fossil fuel burning.

[gondramB]

>>And man caused this how?
If New Orleans flooded every spring when all the snow masses world wide melted and poured into the sea my reort would be that those people chose poorly when they decided were to build<<

I don't think its clear whether or how much man is contributing to sea level increases.

And I happen to live in the 2nd highest major city in the U.S. -that won't stop my government and taxes and investments from being horribly effected.

Not to mention, I'm a Christian and so are most of the people I know, we are not going to let millions of people be displaced without helping.

[mylife]

It is not impossible that the problem will become severe enough that invoking a mild nuclear winter will become one the few viable choices.

Our fundamental difference in stance on this is that you believe man is the cause and cure to global warming. I believe that while we should be good stewards of the environment we do not have ultimate control of it

[ricks_place]

no secret that Shep is Fox's resident "sissy-boy"

What exactly is Shep's G-Block? Oh, never mind, more info than needed.

[Paved Paradise]

I'll take a large with butter please.

[mylife]

I happen to live in the 2nd highest major city in the U.S.

In Georgia? L0L

[California74]

I found this interesting site that appears to be an earth science textbook. Seems very "technical," maybe a little less biased than Al Gore & the NY times, though I do see some opinions thrown in there.

What I wanna know, is how scientists know exactly how many parts per million of each listed substance there was in the atmosphere in the 1700's in order to compare! Hmmm... (scratching my head). I have a feeling it must involve calculus.

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7y.html
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html

[gondramB]

>>Our fundamental difference in stance on this is that you believe man is the cause and cure to global warming. I believe that while we should be good stewards of the environment we do not have ultimate control of it<<

Actually, my position is that we should look at the situation without prejudging how much if any, humans are contributing.

And we certainly don't have ultimate control with what happens to the earth, unless God intervenes we know how the earth will end - our sun is of the correct size to turn into a red giant and will one day expand until the earth is inside the sun - and the earth will end.

That doesn't mean we cannot effect smaller issues in the mean time.

[shield]

This is the toons' killing machine at work....must be something in the wind of gore announcing a run for president...they're out front to destroy him...stopping him from running....NY Slimes once again doing the dirty work for the toons'!!! Nothing new here...same ole' same ole' ...

[Zon]

It is not impossible that the problem will become severe enough that invoking a mild nuclear winter will become one the few viable choices.

It's not impossible that it's a non-problem and that Earth will continue it's climate cycle -- now at the cusp of plunging into the comming ice age.-- regardless of anything man does.

Want to see an global-warming-whacko's head explode? Show 'em this.

The following graphs show that Earth is in a brief period of global warming called an interglacial. The longer time spans, the deep troughs are glacial periods. The line that runs across the graphs is the temperature in 1950 and listed as "0" on the left axis.

As can be seen in the last graph (Figure 1-5), Earth appears ready to move toward another ice age in the cycle.

I'm more concerned with sustaining global warming to offset global cooling and the next ice age. 

Ice Ages & Astronomical Causes
Brief Introduction to the History of Climate
by Richard A. Muller

Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle

This first graph looks bad, doesn't it -- steeper upward temperature trend. Horizontal red line is temperature at 1950.

Figure 1-1 Global warming

The second graph shows today's temperature isn't out of the norm. Horizontal blue line is temperature at 1950.

Figure 1-2 Climate of the last 2400 years

The next graph shows a downtrend in temperatures from 8,000 years ago to today. The down trend is steeper in the recent 2,000 years. From left to right the upper spikes have lower highs while the lower spikes have lower lows. (The same effect can be seen in Figure 1-2, above.) 

Figure 1-3 Climate of the last 12,000 years

This graph shows that agriculture and  stationary societies emerged 8,000 years ago during a time frame when global temperature was much higher than normal, or average.

Figure 1-4 Climate of the last 100,000 years

The next graph shows that the recent 8,000 years was one of five brief hot spikes when glaciers were at minimums. With much longer troughs when glacials (ice ages) were the norm most of the time.

Figure 1-5 Climate for the last 420 kyr, from Vostok ice

The graph below is reversed. That is, the left side is present day and the right side is 3 million years ago. It shows a 3 million year down trend toward widening extremes in the temperature cycle.

Figure 1-6 Climate for the last 3 million years

The final graph shows CO2 lagging temperature change -- not leading it.

Figure 1-7 CO2 and temperature for the last 450 kyr

When man can cause meaningful global warming yesterday would be a good time to begin thwarting the next ice age.

[mylife]

I know you watched TGGWS. I rather we spent those gabillion dollars on helping humanity in a way that actually helps them

[kabar]

Sounds like a hit job by Hillary to deep six another competitor.