[.cnI redruM]

>>>>There is no science on the other side, Gore inveighed


As Senator and Veep, AL Gore had plenty to say about which side had money. SO in a sense, he's right. He simply bankrupted anyone who had the audacity to dispute "the inconvenient truth."

[wvobiwan]

Global warming is a world-wide academic fraud and scam, it's all about grant money for the 'scientists', and all about redistributing wealth for the 'activists'.

Ignore them and they'll go away eventually. The shriller they get, the easier it is to do that.

[RexBeach]

"The Artic was as warm or warmer in 1940."

I wonder what kind of face Mr. Gore makes when he reads such things?

If we can't predict with 100% accuracy what the weather will be like this Sunday, how in the Hell can we claim to predict what the earth's climate will be like in 50 to 75 years?

Oh well. This stuff makes my head hurt, anyway.

[tx_eggman]

I love these threads. They allow me to expound my theory on the root cause of Global Warming ... the demise of the pirate.

Refute this if you can:

[r9etb]

And in the Boston Globe, yet...

[WideGlide]

``We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change" is one of Lindzen's many heresies

"PSSSHT! Dat's whack Mister ProFessore."

[DesScorp]

The problem is that this guy isn't a lone voice in the wolderness....in fact, most of the scientists that doubt global warming are in fact climatologists...and most scientists making scare noises about it are not. At Colorado State University, the scientist in charge of hurricane forcasts for North America says plainly that he thinks Global Warming is an outright scientific fraud, Piltdown Man for climatologists.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

When you mention this guy, the global warming extremists all say he gets paid by the petroleum industry.

Never mind that all the global warming extremists get their funding from the NSF, which will not entertain anti-global warming research.

[TChris]

Just as soon as a climatologist, or any other scientist, can create a computer model that can accurately, reliably, repeatedly predict the average temperature of just my state one month in advance, then they will begin to have some credibility. Until that day, such confident predictions and presumptions about the behavior of the global climate in years and decades to come are monumentally arrogant.

Coupled with all the urgent demands for wide-ranging policy changes based on those predictions, the whole issue is frightening and seriously damages the name of science, IMO.

[notdownwidems]

read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" for a sourced, highly credible refutation of global warming alarmism.

[Mike Darancette]

There is no science on the other side, Gore inveighed<> Does that stick give Algore colonic distress?

[Question_Assumptions]

I took a college-level climatology class between the time when we were entering the next ice age and global warming. One of the first things the professor said in the first class is that there is no such thing as a normal climate and it's all about averages. And as anyone who has looked at paleoclimatology can tell you, the Earth has ranged from ice nearly to the equator to no ice caps at all (the norm, actually) and the planet managed to survive and bounce back.

[cogitator]

ping

[GladesGuru]

Note to the Goron and Libroids in general:

The METS climate model, one of the world's most advanced climate model programs, came up with the following:

In the summer, Ireland and the Central Sahara have about the same rainfall.

Schneider is wrong. Linzden rightly warns of the inadequacies of the models, the modellers who made them, and the presstitutes who use them to push their agenda.

[pepperdog]

There goes Lindzen's research funding!

[Always Right]

Wow, there is still an honest scientist out there. Incredible, saying what anyone with a brain following this non-debate already knows. Poor guy will get viciously attacked for stating the obvious.

[Always Right]

For no apparent reason, the state of California, Environmental Defense, and the Natural Resources Defense Council have dragged Lindzen and about 15 other global- warming skeptics into a lawsuit over auto- emissions standards. California et al . have asked the auto companies to cough up any and all communications they have had with Lindzen and his colleagues, whose research has been cited in court documents.

Unbelievable. The global warming NAZIs will stop at nothing to advance their radical left-wing agenda.

[The Sons of Liberty]

The global warming debate gives pseudo intellectuals something to talk about with the marginally informed at cocktail parties, and others like gore, who've never had a real job, a means to bring in cash.

[NutCrackerBoy]

My respect for Alex Beam went from zero to non-zero. At the very least, he correctly exposes the thuggish tactics of GW fanatics. Whenever someone says the debate is over, they're lying. And they say it a lot.

Scientists have been known time and and time again to be very wrong in conclusions that have a wide consensus among them.

[StopGlobalWhining]

... I sat in a roomful of journalists 10 years ago while Stanford climatologist Stephen Schneider lectured us on a big problem in our profession: soliciting opposing points of view. In the debate over climate change, Schneider said, there simply was no legitimate opposing view to the scientific consensus that man - made carbon emissions drive global warming. To suggest or report otherwise, he said, was irresponsible.

LOL!

Irresponsible Professor Schneider? What I would call irresponsible is the statement you made in the October 1989 issue of Discover magazine:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts.

On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.

To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

As reported in REPORTS - Less Burning, No Tears

By ROCHELLE L. STANFIELD, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Saturday, Aug. 13, 1988