Re: ³inaccuracies² in ³An Inconvenient Truth.²

In message news:45f690bc$0$16396$88260bb3@free.teranews.com, dh sprach
forth the following:
[color=blue]
> Probably the most significant question is whether or not Al Gore's
> movie represents a consensus.[/color]

The "consensus" was once that the earth was flat and Milli Vannilli could
sing.
[color=blue]
> Prior to 1850 and the beginning of large-scale fossil fuel consumption,
> atmospheric CO2 had not risen above 280 for at least 800K years. Now
> it's at 380.[/color]

1. It is 100% impossible to know what atmospheric CO2 was in 1850, much
less 800,000 years ago.

2. Even if CO2 levels have risen, there is no way to show such a condition
is due to human activity.

3. For the past 120 years, so-called "scientists" have alternated about
every 30 years between predicting an Ice Age and predicting "global
warming".

4. During that same time, median temperatures have risen and fallen in
almost direct correlation to sunspot activity.
[color=blue]
> Volcanoes? No. It's us.[/color]

It's the sun.

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:46:37 -0600, "dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>Imagine a Kansas that is too hot and dry to grow wheat. Work your way up
>from there. Does it make sense to take risks with the environment? Do you
>have a backup planet to live on?
>[/color]

So what are we supposed to do?

Elect Hillary Clinton?

ROFLMAO

Please realize this is all crap. This is the present way for the left
to take over our lives.

--

Scott in Florida

On 13 Mar 2007 13:33:34 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
<nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
[color=blue]
>In message news:45f690bc$0$16396$88260bb3@free.teranews.com, dh sprach
>forth the following:
>[color=green]
>> Probably the most significant question is whether or not Al Gore's
>> movie represents a consensus.[/color]
>
>The "consensus" was once that the earth was flat and Milli Vannilli could
>sing.
>[color=green]
>> Prior to 1850 and the beginning of large-scale fossil fuel consumption,
>> atmospheric CO2 had not risen above 280 for at least 800K years. Now
>> it's at 380.[/color]
>
>1. It is 100% impossible to know what atmospheric CO2 was in 1850, much
>less 800,000 years ago.
>
>2. Even if CO2 levels have risen, there is no way to show such a condition
>is due to human activity.
>
>3. For the past 120 years, so-called "scientists" have alternated about
>every 30 years between predicting an Ice Age and predicting "global
>warming".
>
>4. During that same time, median temperatures have risen and fallen in
>almost direct correlation to sunspot activity.
>[color=green]
>> Volcanoes? No. It's us.[/color]
>
>It's the sun.[/color]


Agreed.

Mars is heating up and Al Bore's movie and his idiotic carbon
footprint isn't there....

--

Scott in Florida

"dbu,." <question-mark@einp.com> wrote in message
news:question-mark-C82BBA.03582913032007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=blue]
> <[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1331438400&en=2df[/url]
> 9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss>
>
> Tiny: [url]http://tinyurl.com/2judz6[/url]
>
> Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global
> warming, ³An Inconvenient Truth,² 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. Gores
> central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some
> say, at what they call his alarmism.
> I dont 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.
> --[/color]

Probably the most significant question is whether or not Al Gore's movie
represents a consensus. One of the people interviewd in the article, Benny
Peiser, makes just that charge. Here's the lowdown on Peiser:

[url]http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1056[/url]

Prior to 1850 and the beginning of large-scale fossil fuel consumption,
atmospheric CO2 had not risen above 280 for at least 800K years. Now it's
at 380. Volcanoes? No. It's us.

Imagine a Kansas that is too hot and dry to grow wheat. Work your way up
from there. Does it make sense to take risks with the environment? Do you
have a backup planet to live on?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

In article <45f690bc$0$16396$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
"dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "dbu,." <question-mark@einp.com> wrote in message
> news:question-mark-C82BBA.03582913032007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=green]
> > <[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1331438400&en=2df[/url]
> > 9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss>
> >
> > Tiny: [url]http://tinyurl.com/2judz6[/url]
> >
> > Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global
> > warming, ³An Inconvenient Truth,² 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. Gores
> > central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some
> > say, at what they call his alarmism.
> > I dont 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.
> > --[/color]
>
> Probably the most significant question is whether or not Al Gore's movie
> represents a consensus. One of the people interviewd in the article, Benny
> Peiser, makes just that charge. Here's the lowdown on Peiser:
>
> [url]http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1056[/url]
>
> Prior to 1850 and the beginning of large-scale fossil fuel consumption,
> atmospheric CO2 had not risen above 280 for at least 800K years. Now it's
> at 380. Volcanoes? No. It's us.
>
> Imagine a Kansas that is too hot and dry to grow wheat. Work your way up
> from there. Does it make sense to take risks with the environment? Do you
> have a backup planet to live on?[/color]

Oh bullshit. You are easily led.
--

"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns98F2613D37A16FredGarvin@66.250.146.128...[color=blue]
> In message news:45f690bc$0$16396$88260bb3@free.teranews.com, dh sprach
> forth the following:
>[color=green]
>> Probably the most significant question is whether or not Al Gore's
>> movie represents a consensus.[/color]
>
> The "consensus" was once that the earth was flat and Milli Vannilli could
> sing.[/color]

The "flat earth" model was supplanted by - surprise - science.

Milli Vanilli was thought to be capable of sining but it tured out to be
fraud - much like industry shills parading as "climate scientists."
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Prior to 1850 and the beginning of large-scale fossil fuel consumption,
>> atmospheric CO2 had not risen above 280 for at least 800K years. Now
>> it's at 380.[/color]
>
> 1. It is 100% impossible to know what atmospheric CO2 was in 1850, much
> less 800,000 years ago.
>[/color]

Ice cores provide a good record and can be calibrated to match the Mauna Loa
readings. We have very good information about prehistoric CO2 levels.
[color=blue]
> 2. Even if CO2 levels have risen, there is no way to show such a
> condition
> is due to human activity.[/color]

So, where else did it come from?
[color=blue]
> 3. For the past 120 years, so-called "scientists" have alternated about
> every 30 years between predicting an Ice Age and predicting "global
> warming".[/color]

Bull.
[color=blue]
> 4. During that same time, median temperatures have risen and fallen in
> almost direct correlation to sunspot activity.
>[color=green]
>> Volcanoes? No. It's us.[/color]
>
> It's the sun.[/color]

You won't get any consensus of astronomers to agree to that AND you still
have the 100ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 to deal with. That's a fact.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

In message news:45f690bc$0$16396$88260bb3@free.teranews.com, dh sprach
forth the following:
[color=blue]
> Imagine a Kansas that is too hot and dry to grow wheat. Work your way
> up from there. Does it make sense to take risks with the environment?
> Do you have a backup planet to live on?[/color]

I said, "Be careful - his bowtie is really a camera."

"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
news:uiadv2p34s7m625tgqa1jotchh3itormuj@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On 13 Mar 2007 13:33:34 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
> <nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>In message news:45f690bc$0$16396$88260bb3@free.teranews.com, dh sprach
>>forth the following:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Probably the most significant question is whether or not Al Gore's
>>> movie represents a consensus.[/color]
>>
>>The "consensus" was once that the earth was flat and Milli Vannilli could
>>sing.
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Prior to 1850 and the beginning of large-scale fossil fuel consumption,
>>> atmospheric CO2 had not risen above 280 for at least 800K years. Now
>>> it's at 380.[/color]
>>
>>1. It is 100% impossible to know what atmospheric CO2 was in 1850, much
>>less 800,000 years ago.
>>
>>2. Even if CO2 levels have risen, there is no way to show such a
>>condition
>>is due to human activity.
>>
>>3. For the past 120 years, so-called "scientists" have alternated about
>>every 30 years between predicting an Ice Age and predicting "global
>>warming".
>>
>>4. During that same time, median temperatures have risen and fallen in
>>almost direct correlation to sunspot activity.
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Volcanoes? No. It's us.[/color]
>>
>>It's the sun.[/color]
>
> Agreed.
>
> Mars is heating up and Al Bore's movie and his idiotic carbon
> footprint isn't there....
>
> --
>
> Scott in Florida[/color]

Actually, from the facts in the story, there's almost no proof that Mars is
heating up and there's less proof that, if such Martian heating exists, that
it's due to an increase in insolation.

The one bare fact cited is that the Martian "ice" caps are disappearing.
This could be happening for several reasons. Mars *could* be warming, so
they're sublimating. Or they could be getting covered with dust and are
still there but rendered invisible. Or the CO2 that makes up the Martian
"ice" caps is no outgassnig noticeably from the Martian atmosphere (this
happens all the time anyway). Or there could be other factors at work which
we don't undestand. I don't see anywhere in this article that direct
Martian temperature measurements (which we can probably do) or direct
radiation measurements bear any of that "solar heating" theory out (and we
have had satellites in space for some time, quite capable of direct
measurement of solar radiation).

Jumping from "The Martian 'ice' caps are disappearing" to "therefore the sun
is heating up" could be called "convenient" science. It's convenient for
those who feel threatened by current theories of global warming. But it's
better to call it junk science.

If the Martian 'ice' caps are disappearning, it would be nice to know why.
I think we should investigate that.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

In article <45f6ab6a$0$16316$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
"DH" <dh@stargate.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
> news:uiadv2p34s7m625tgqa1jotchh3itormuj@4ax.com...[color=green]
> > On 13 Mar 2007 13:33:34 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
> > <nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >>In message news:45f690bc$0$16396$88260bb3@free.teranews.com, dh sprach
> >>forth the following:
> >>
> >>> Probably the most significant question is whether or not Al Gore's
> >>> movie represents a consensus.
> >>
> >>The "consensus" was once that the earth was flat and Milli Vannilli could
> >>sing.
> >>
> >>> Prior to 1850 and the beginning of large-scale fossil fuel consumption,
> >>> atmospheric CO2 had not risen above 280 for at least 800K years. Now
> >>> it's at 380.
> >>
> >>1. It is 100% impossible to know what atmospheric CO2 was in 1850, much
> >>less 800,000 years ago.
> >>
> >>2. Even if CO2 levels have risen, there is no way to show such a
> >>condition
> >>is due to human activity.
> >>
> >>3. For the past 120 years, so-called "scientists" have alternated about
> >>every 30 years between predicting an Ice Age and predicting "global
> >>warming".
> >>
> >>4. During that same time, median temperatures have risen and fallen in
> >>almost direct correlation to sunspot activity.
> >>
> >>> Volcanoes? No. It's us.
> >>
> >>It's the sun.[/color]
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > Mars is heating up and Al Bore's movie and his idiotic carbon
> > footprint isn't there....
> >
> > --
> >
> > Scott in Florida[/color]
>
> Actually, from the facts in the story, there's almost no proof that Mars is
> heating up and there's less proof that, if such Martian heating exists, that
> it's due to an increase in insolation.
>
> The one bare fact cited is that the Martian "ice" caps are disappearing.
> This could be happening for several reasons. Mars *could* be warming, so
> they're sublimating. Or they could be getting covered with dust and are
> still there but rendered invisible. Or the CO2 that makes up the Martian
> "ice" caps is no outgassnig noticeably from the Martian atmosphere (this
> happens all the time anyway). Or there could be other factors at work which
> we don't undestand. I don't see anywhere in this article that direct
> Martian temperature measurements (which we can probably do) or direct
> radiation measurements bear any of that "solar heating" theory out (and we
> have had satellites in space for some time, quite capable of direct
> measurement of solar radiation).
>
> Jumping from "The Martian 'ice' caps are disappearing" to "therefore the sun
> is heating up" could be called "convenient" science. It's convenient for
> those who feel threatened by current theories of global warming. But it's
> better to call it junk science.
>
> If the Martian 'ice' caps are disappearning, it would be nice to know why.
> I think we should investigate that.[/color]

It's the SUN, SUN, SUN!!!

Sheeeezzzzz!!
--

DH, 3/13/2007,10:38:27 AM, wrote:
[color=blue]
> If the Martian 'ice' caps are disappearning, it would be nice to know
> why. I think we should investigate that.[/color]

I agree. Let's send Al Gore there to do the job. He's bound to
uncover "The Inconvenient Truth".

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0f3nnq221jw2p000@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> DH, 3/13/2007,10:38:27 AM, wrote:
>[color=green]
>> If the Martian 'ice' caps are disappearning, it would be nice to know
>> why. I think we should investigate that.[/color]
>
> I agree. Let's send Al Gore there to do the job. He's bound to
> uncover "The Inconvenient Truth".[/color]

No. We should send dbu. He's on record as saying "it's the sun," let him
go to Mars and get the straight scoop.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

DH, 3/13/2007,10:59:10 AM, wrote:
[color=blue]
> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xn0f3nnq221jw2p000@news.readfreenews.net...[color=green]
> > DH, 3/13/2007,10:38:27 AM, wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > If the Martian 'ice' caps are disappearning, it would be nice to
> > > know why. I think we should investigate that.[/color]
> >
> > I agree. Let's send Al Gore there to do the job. He's bound to
> > uncover "The Inconvenient Truth".[/color]
>
> No. We should send dbu. He's on record as saying "it's the sun,"
> let him go to Mars and get the straight scoop.[/color]

dbu is not an accomplished scientist like Al Gore is, who by the way
also invented the Internet, and of course hanging chads.

"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns98F2725F29B11FredGarvin@66.250.146.128...[color=blue]
> In message news:45f6ab6a$0$16316$88260bb3@free.teranews.com, DH sprach
> forth the following:
>[color=green]
>> Mars *could* be warming, so
>> they're sublimating.[/color]
>
> The recent UN report uses similar sublimation SIXTY-SIX TIMES.[/color]

There's a UN report on Mars?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0f3no50220cmx000@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> DH, 3/13/2007,10:59:10 AM, wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:xn0f3nnq221jw2p000@news.readfreenews.net...[color=darkred]
>> > DH, 3/13/2007,10:38:27 AM, wrote:
>> >
>> > > If the Martian 'ice' caps are disappearning, it would be nice to
>> > > know why. I think we should investigate that.
>> >
>> > I agree. Let's send Al Gore there to do the job. He's bound to
>> > uncover "The Inconvenient Truth".[/color]
>>
>> No. We should send dbu. He's on record as saying "it's the sun,"
>> let him go to Mars and get the straight scoop.[/color]
>
> dbu is not an accomplished scientist like Al Gore is, who by the way
> also invented the Internet, and of course hanging chads.[/color]

Check what Gore actually said, that he took the initiative to create the
Internet. Which is true.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

"dbu.," <question*mark@einp.com> wrote in message
news:question*mark-DFE861.04304114032007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=blue]
> In article <1173841543.033077.234070@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> [email]clfr@adelphia.net[/email] wrote:[color=green]
>> On Mar 13, 8:08 pm, "dbu.," <question*m...@einp.com> wrote:[color=darkred]
>> > In article <45f73014$2$16315$88260...@free.teranews.com>,
>> >
>> > "dh" <d...@stargate.com> wrote:
>> > > "Scott in Florida" <askifyouw...@mindspring.net> wrote in message
>> > >news:hhaev2dt1cp906v5bi0ajnm5647gfoh42u@4ax.com...
>> > > > On 13 Mar 2007 15:36:25 -0700, "SMS" <scharf.ste...@gmail.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >>On Mar 13, 7:59 am, "DH" <d...@stargate.com> wrote:
>> > > >>> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> > > >>> message
>> >
>> > > >>> No. We should send dbu. He's on record as saying "it's the
>> > > >>> sun," let
>> > > >>> him
>> > > >>> go to Mars and get the straight scoop.
>> >
>> > > >>Or better yet, send him to the sun.
>> >
>> > > > another angry lib outed.....
>> >
>> > > > It must suck to be liberal....
>> >
>> > > > Scott in Florida
>> >
>> > > What's angry about that? We're just suggesting dbu go get the facts.
>> >
>> > I sure didn't get any "facts" from Al Gore's flick. What a waste.[/color]
>>
>> You watched it, or read the book?
>>
>> Cathy[/color]
>
> I watched gore's move yesterday. It is highly political, it is all
> about gore. When watching it you have to assume gore is an expert,
> (he's not) and you have to be a gore fan, otherwise forget it.
>
> About the only thing I can agree with him on is all the cars, we've got
> too many and that's because we have a growing population and everybody
> wants a car. As for global warming, it's the sun stupid.[/color]

I am fairly certain that Al mentions, right at the outset, that he's not an
expert. He relies on experts. He is conveying to us what he has learned
from experts.

And it's pointless to criticize the movie, as the paid skeptics do, as
though it were a scientific paper. It is not and is not intended to be and
it's pointless to judge it in that way. It's a documentary, making a case
for and calling our attention to a problem.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]