Posted on 03/12/2007 2:43:36 PM PDT by Names Ash Housewares
Edited on 03/12/2007 11:45:12 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
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.”.."
Some criticism but hardly a hit piece.
>>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.”<<
While they are trying not to trash Gore this is a good beginning - we must get to a place where we can reexamine human causation or we may wind up flushing a large part of our economy.
Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton who advised Mr. Gore on the book and movie, said that reasonable scientists disagreed on the malaria issue and other points that the critics had raised. In general, he said, Mr. Gore had distinguished himself for integrity.
“On balance, he did quite well — a credible and entertaining job on a difficult subject,” Dr. Oppenheimer said. “For that, he deserves a lot of credit. If you rake him over the coals, you’re going to find people who disagree. But in terms of the big picture, he got it right.”
Others have posted the link.
I'd like that to be true. I hope its true. But all the major science organizations and governmental bodies that study this sort of thing are predicting more warming and/or more sea level increases.
And for a thousand years consensus was that the Sun evolved around the Earth. It's called political agenda. "Major science organizations and governmental bodies."
Honest scientists not reliant on job security by government funding or NGO environmental orgs are the most trust worthy source I've found.
Goodness knows a government officials in any government body would never put political agenda ahead of being honest. I'm sure nobody in Greenpeace or the Sierra Club would put their political agenda ahead of being honest. Oh BTW, if your interested I have this really nice bridge for sale.
I think the best we can do is fight off things like Kyoto and push for proof of human causation.
I think the best a person can do is champion honesty while denouncing lies, spin and deception. And push for proof or refutation of anthropogenic global warming. It's possible that man's technology has slowed global warming.
>>
“On balance, he did quite well — a credible and entertaining job on a difficult subject,” Dr. Oppenheimer said. “For that, he deserves a lot of credit. If you rake him over the coals, you’re going to find people who disagree. But in terms of the big picture, he got it right.”<<
This guy was an adviser on the book and movie... not the right place to look for fair criticism. The fact he's waffling at all is a sign that he has to be aware of more valid criticism.
But yeah, the article wasn't what had been suggested.
Psychopath seems much more appropriate.
Nambla anyone?
gondramB, no disrespect here, but you speak of rising sea levels as an absolute fact.
I'm 45, been around the block, read my science books, kept up to date. I do not recall ever seeing any serious investigations, evidence or proof that our seas are rising. Conjecture, yes, but real-life evidence or even widespread concern, no.
Is it stone-cold scientific fact that sea levels are rising, or just more hypothesis? Again, no direspect, but I'm skeptical of this.
Good point.
I just spent the last hour plus watching the "Great Global Warming Swindle". A great expose.
Initially I did find myself disagreeing with the role of solar power in developing nations, thinking that it could indeed provide sufficient energy for lights and a small refrigerator. But on further reflection, individual units would be too expensive for the poor except in very rural areas. No, electrical projects such as we in the US did in the 1930's will provide a much more quality of life. And of course, those require fossil fuels.
My second comment was that the film completely ignored the concept of trading "carbon credits", which is a whole shell game in itself.
Yeah, it's like your mother-in-law agreeing with you on something.
After reading this "hit piece" (an ant crossing my toe has more weight than this one), I agree. It's a yawner.
Whoa, Tyra and her two talents.
"Duh!"
I look nothing like this! ... really
I stopped reading the thread at your post. You are correct I think.
"When my laxative kicks in, I'm gonna destroy my toilet."
May I take the initiative to re-post Ann Coulters absolute genius column from two weeks ago that explains this whole Gore nonsense better than anything I`ve ever read on the Global warming fantasy. Read it once, read it twice, then send it 50 times to every envior-nut you know:
LET THEM EAT TOFU!
Even right-wingers who know that "global warming" is a crock do not seem to grasp what the tree-huggers are demanding. Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation.
Forget the lunacy of people claiming to tell us the precise temperature of planet Earth in 1918 based on tree rings. Or the fact that in the '70s liberals were issuing similarly dire warnings about "global cooling."
Simply consider what noted climatologists Al Gore and Melissa Etheridge are demanding that we do to combat their nutty conjectures about "global warming." They want us to starve the productive sector of fossil fuel and allow the world's factories to grind to a halt. This means an end to material growth and a cataclysmic reduction in wealth.
There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending "global warming," but liberals simply announce that the debate has been resolved in their favor and demand that we shut down all production.
They think they can live in a world of only Malibu and East Hampton — with no Trentons or Detroits. It does not occur to them that someone has to manufacture the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels that go into those "eco-friendly" mansions, and someone has to truck it all to their beachfront properties, and someone else has to transport all the workers there to build it. (And then someone has to drive the fleets of trucks delivering the pachysandra and bottled water every day.)
Liberals are already comfortably ensconced in their beachfront estates, which they expect to be unaffected by their negative growth prescriptions for the rest of us.
There was more energy consumed in the manufacture, construction and maintenance of Leonardo DiCaprio's Malibu home than is needed to light the entire city of Albuquerque, where there are surely several men who can actually act. But he has solar panels to warm his house six degrees on chilly Malibu nights.
Liberals haven't the foggiest idea how the industrial world works. They act as if America could reduce its vast energy consumption by using fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars rather than SUVs. They have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter — luxuries Americans are not likely to abandon because Leo DiCaprio had solar panels trucked into his Malibu estate.
Our lives depend on fossil fuel. Steel plants, chemical plants, rubber plants, pharmaceutical plants, glass plants, paper plants –- those run on energy. There are no Mother Earth nursery designs in stylish organic cotton without gas-belching factories, ships and trucks, and temperature-controlled, well-lighted stores. Windmills can't even produce enough energy to manufacture a windmill.
Because of the industrialization of agriculture –- using massive amounts of fossil fuel — only 2 percent of Americans work in farming. And yet they produce enough food to feed all 300 million Americans, with plenty left over for export. When are liberals going to break the news to their friends in Darfur that they all have to starve to death to save the planet?
"Global warming" is the left's pagan rage against mankind. If we can't produce industrial waste, then we can't produce. Some of us — not the ones with mansions in Malibu and Nashville is my guess — are going to have to die. To say we need to reduce our energy consumption is like saying we need to reduce our oxygen consumption.
Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukranians, vegetarian atheist Adolf Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate poor blacks, DDT opponent Rachel Carson wanted to eliminate Africans (introduction to her book "Silent Spring" written by ... Al Gore!), and population-control guru Paul Ehrlich wants to eliminate all humans.
But global warming is the most insane, psychotic idea liberals have ever concocted to kill off "useless eaters." If we have to live in a pure "natural" environment like the Indians, then our entire transcontinental nation can only support about 1 million human beings. Sorry, fellas — 299 million of you are going to have to go.
Proving that the "global warming" campaign is nothing but hatred of humanity, these are the exact same people who destroyed the nuclear power industry in this country 30 years ago.
If we accept for purposes of argument their claim that the only way the human race can survive is with clean energy that doesn't emit carbon dioxide, environmentalists waited until they had safely destroyed the nuclear power industry to tell us that. This proves they never intended for us to survive.
"Global warming" is the liberal's stalking horse for their ultimate fantasy: The whole U.S. will look like Amagansett, with no one living in it except their even-tempered maids (for "diversity"), themselves and their coterie (all, presumably, living in solar-heated mansions, except the maids who will do without electricity altogether). The entire fuel-guzzling, tacky, beer-drinking, NASCAR-watching middle class with their over-large families will simply have to die.
It seems not to have occurred to the jet set that when California is as poor as Mexico, they might have trouble finding a maid. Without trucking, packaging, manufacturing, shipping and refrigeration in their Bel-Air fantasy world, they'll be chasing the rear-end of an animal every time their stomachs growl and killing small animals for pelts to keep their genitals warm.
Algore makes me sad.
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.