It is? Seems like a pretty typical article. Find position you want to convey, find people who will support it, find a cuckoo on the other side, write an article. I've seen dozens like that. Now, if they didn't do that, that would be creepy.

Environmentalists aren't making BILLIONS of dollars. That's the difference.

And you are right, nobody can live without oil. That's why these big oil companies should not be squeezing the little man dry by profiting off of something that we need to live.

Let me rephrase: cuckoo is creepy.

I googled him and actually he's a little more literate than the article portrays him as--I found an article he himself wrote: http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&cd=10

(and remember, I said a "little" more literate)

I'm calling bullshit on him. NOTHING can stop the killer bee epidemic.

-Toilet Dcuk

And how the fuck do you know? Don't be so naive. Every cause starts out as a good idea at first but then get fucked up by the people. Just ask the guy who started Green Peace and he'll tell you how these supposedly "wanting to do good for the earth people" have become corrupt and instead of doing things to help the earth are more interested in weilding power than actually helping the environment. It goes the same pretty much for any other organization, like religion, government, etc., etc... That's why I don't realy see that much difference between the liberals and religious fanatics.

thank you for this link, I look forward to watching Mr. Gore's film.

I think anyone who doesn't admit the oil companies profits have been obscene lately is either "naive" or ignoring the facts. The greatest profits ever recorded by any company EVER were announced by the oil firms in recent quarters. Why don't they find a way to do some good PR and plow some of their profits back into the hands of the poorest members of society by supplying below market home heating oil. Instead they get upstaged by Hugo Chavez of Venezeula who does find a way to do just that.
And don't get me started on Greenpeace who thanks to their promoting Ralph Nader as a viable presidential candidate in 2000 helped elect George Bush (well, yes, the Supreme Court did provide a push).

It bothers me a lot that people still believe that Global Warming is nothing more than a myth. I realize such a thing would force us not as a nation, but a speices to change our way of life. And for some change is... bad. But that's another subject.

So, I have a simple question. What must happen in order for you to consider that the phenomenon is genuine? I'm not talking about more scientists agreeing. I'm talking about things around you, you're life in general.

I think the only way these people will believe the reality of Global Warming is when a huge natural disaster occurs as a result. It's a scary notion, but that will probably be the only time real change will start happening.

Well, the first thing that would need to happen is that I would need to stop hearing "oh, the science is indisputable, there is no doubt, everyone agrees on this" and so on. That is about the surest way to tell that you are dealing with charlatans. Science is never indisputable and while it settles on things as tentatively true, it does so naturally, not under pressure of "this line of research is complete, everyone stop questioning it".

I might be a little better than an average bear at detecting shameless propaganda - growing up in Soviet Union lets you develop senses that detect that particular stench with very little effort. But, really, it is not that hard even if you don't have my background. A lot less activism; a lot more willingness to treat this as an knowledge gathering activity more than an alarmist call to action would go a long way toward legitimizing that point of view enough to let me consider its validity.

It would also help if you stopped treating me like you are a wise and noble prophet going to great personal sacrifices to deliver that "inconvenient truth" to me. My BS detector can only take so much.

Those things would make me willing to consider that there is something to what you are trying to sell me.

Not really relevant to this board, so if TPTB want to cut this out, I'd be happy to comply. But, hey, since you asked...

As someone with an education in science (albeit not climatology) I am astounded almost daily at how easily people can "hide their head in the sand" when faced with research findings. Climatologists have nothing to gain by "selling propaganda" about global warming. They are merely doing their part to try to relay their findings to the public and policy makers before the climatological change is irreversible.

I think the American people underestimate just how rigorous the scientific process is, and how readily scientists within a field will tear apart the conclusions and theories of their peers if they are based on flimsy data.

Nah, I'm sure most of them will just assume it was the wrath of God, punishing mankind for something YOU probably did. :rolleyes:

Yeah, SRGilbert. I can so easily see that. Pat Robertson on the top of that list. But then again he already does that.

Thanks for the link! Let's hope this works.

Thanks, I tried it with email that I don't use anymore.

I loved this movie in theatre and would love to see it again. I rarely like any documentary other than seeing unusual animals, but this movie was actually really entertaining and shocking. I was especially shocked by the image of glaciers disappearing at Mt. Kilimanjaro.(I remember seeing the glaciers in some documentary when I was a child and always wanted to go there someday)
I never really cared about this before, and I don't have enough knowledge about it to make educated comment, but after seeing this movie and experiencing the most warm winter EVER(in my recent memory), here in New York; I have to admit, I am somewhat alarmed.

According to James Howard Kunstler's "The Long Emergency", it's only a matter of time. The book is pretty frightening if even a fraction of what he says is true...

Yes, keep fighting the straw man that AGW skeptics say global warming is a myth. No one (who knows anything) says that. Skeptics also do not question that some of the warming is caused by our CO2 emissions.

The real questions are (1) How much warming is there? Well, there has been about .6C in the last century. (2) How much will there be in the future? Much harder to answer since it hasn't happened yet but I would expect no more in the next century, maybe less (although, if you believe as I do that the far greater part of the warming is due to natural causes, it's difficult to predict what they will do). Part of that is based on the undeniable scientific fact that each molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere causes less warming than the molecule before. That is because CO2 absorbs energy at certain wavelengths and those become saturated and less and less is capable of being absorbed. The progression is logarithmic, not linear or geometric or exponential (as the alarmists want you to believe). It's as if you have a window and you pull down a shade which blocks half the light. Pull down another shade and it blocks half of what's left. And so on. Diminishing returns and pretty soon one more shade or 100 more make almost no difference. I've seen an estimate that CO2 has already caused about 80% of all the warming it can possibly cause so there isn't all that much to fear from continued increases. (3) How much of the past warming has been caused by human CO2 emissions? The alarmists want to attributed nearly all the warming to us but there is evidence that there are other factors that may be much more important. For example, the sun has been much more active in the last century than it was in the century before. There is a theory that a more active sun cause less cosmic rays to reach the Earth and when there are more cosmic rays they cause more clouds to form and clouds have an overall cooling effect. Thus, a more active sun leads indirectly to more natural warming. This theory is being taken seriously by many scientists at about two dozen major universities and research institutions and in the next few years much experimentation and research is going to be carried out at CERN, the world's largest particle physics laboratory, near Geneva. If this research pans out, it may explain more than half the warming. Another recent UN study attributes more warming effect to livestock and its raising than all the transportation industry in all the world. The answer to the question of how much of the warming has been caused by CO2 emissions is we do not know (and I suspect it is only a small part of it and it is diminishing) but, of course, that's all we ever hear about. (4) How much good will it do to force us to drastically reduce our CO2 emissions? The skeptics believe it will do very little. One estimate is that following Kyoto and future Kyoto-like schemes will mean that instead of reaching whatever temperature we'll reach in 2100, it will be postponed until the much later date of... 2106. And all that for trillions of dollars in lost economic growth and accompanying lost technological advancement (the very things that would otherwise help us in dealing with any actual problems which may arise).

I haven't provided citations for any of this because I (and some others) have been posting this stuff in this thread for quite awhile: The One and Only Global Warming Thread. It's chock full of links and citations to dozens of articles and studies that you will never see in the mainstream media which acts like a fully owned subsidiary of the anthropogenic global warming industry. There have been other earlier threads as well.

The alarmists have a great deal to gain by selling AGW. They receive billions in research grants annually from environmental groups and government agencies, funds that would dry up if they ever were to say the sky wasn't falling. And yet they have the gall to say the skeptics are discredited because some of them have received relative pittances for their research from industry. I'm not saying anyone is being dishonest but if one wanted to lie for one side or the other, there's tons more money in alarmism.

There is counterevidence published almost daily (including in peer reviewed scientific journals) but few people ever see it because the mainstrem media ignore it. For example, when the results of a possibly groundbreaking experiment involving the cosmic rays theory were published by the Royal Society (the UK's National Academy of Science) it was picked up by one or two MSM publications in the entire world. But a moronic story about gingerbread houses "melting" from global warming was picked up by hundreds. This is repeated time and time again by media which have become advocates of AGW and have lost all perspective.

So sure, everyone get your free AIT (I have seen it myself). Then I suggest you get another free resource that is available in the following link, downloadable in chapters: A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth

The film is very well done and rather inspiring.

The DVD is even better than the original theater release, in fact, because it has a 30-minute "update" featurette where Gore elaborates upon findings from research done since it hit the theaters.

(My apologies if this is too far off-topic...)

I'm not all sure that it's specifically Big Oil that's on the drive to denounce the reality of global warming. What I really think is that it just simply doesn't fit in with the way some of the more extreme modern conservatives want things to run. They have obviously jumped on the side that provides simple answers and a degree of freedom (as irresponsibility always provides), and in line with libertarianism in general, it appeals to people because of its simplism. Though every single major institution that studies such things has said that this problem is quite real and - at best - only accelerated by humans, they seem to be grasping for second opinions.

As movielib said, it's not that skeptics believe it's a myth, they just don't see it as a pressing problem. Yet, to ignore the fact that our carbon emissions continue to rise and need to be curtailed is to totally ignore a problem that virtually every credible climatologist readily admits is indeed occurring and affects climate. Our influence is there and that is something that can't be ignored.

"How bad is it going to be in the future?" is asked... Of course, the correct answer is: "We don't really know."

But just as the American Geophysical Union stated, we are "conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems."

A few little blurbs I've compiled for a different board:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released, to date, three official reports about the human effect on climate change (1990, 1995 and 2001). The fourth is still being researched. The reports go into much detail, and this data is condensed into statements that summarize their findings. Note the changes in their stance from one report to the next...

1990: "Our judgment is that: global mean surface air temperature has increased by 0.3 and 0.6 °C over the last 100 years...; The size of this warming is broadly consistent with prediction of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect is not likely for a decade or more."

1995: "Air temperature has increased by between 0.3 and 0.6 °C since the late 19th century; this estimate has not significantly changed since the 1990 report). The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate. There are still many uncertainties (estimates of future emissions and biogeochemical cycling; models; instrument data for model testing, assessment of variability, and detection studies)."

2001: “The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6°C; temperatures have risen during the past four decades in the lowest 8 kilometers of the atmosphere; snow cover and ice extent have decreased. In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. Human influences will continue to change atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century. Global average temperature and sea level are projected to rise under all IPCC SRES scenarios"

It is worth noting that, while you might expect scientists who question the "controversial" results would be numerous (being that, by definition, scientific "truth" is to be questioned), only 1.5% of them have accused the panel of bias.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2001, the National Research Council's Committee on the Science of Climate Change published a report that said that the IPCC's findings are representative of the views of the science community:

“The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.”

...and then goes on to elaborate:

“Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century.”

http://newton.nap.edu/html/climatechange/summary.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

“There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change. Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. It is a long-term problem that requires a long-term perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national and world leaders."

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climat...arch_2003.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The American Geophysical Union issued a statement in 2003 stating:

“Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.”

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/cl..._position.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action, and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Climate Change Science Program (commissioned by the Bush Administration in 2002!) released the first of 21 assessments on May 2, 2006, which concluded that there is "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." The study said that the only factor that could explain the measured warming of Earth's average temperature over the last 50 years was the buildup of heat-trapping gases, which are mainly emitted by burning coal and oil.

http://climatescience.gov/Library/sa...rt/default.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition and more informally, in December 2004, Science published an opinion essay by History professor Naomi Oreskes that summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. (Note: I believe this was actually used in Gore's film.) The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". The abstracts were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleo-climate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleo-climate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out that "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleo-climatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

Thanks for the link, looking forward to checking it out.

Hmmm...

http://www.factcheck.org/article395.html


Wow.

CEI is not the organization I thought it was.

ExxonMobil has given CEI over $2 million since 1998.

It gave them $270,000 in 2004, $180,000 of which was specifically earmarked for "Global Climate Change" and "Global Climate Change Outreach". This is from ExxonMobil's self-published "Public Information and Policy Research Contributions" sheet: http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/...blicpolicy.pdf

CEI's TV ads were, I think, very bad. I said as much in the thread I linked in Post #57. Of course, they were no worse than the AGW ads that started the thread.

But mostly CEI has done some very good things. Publishing Mario Lewis' critique of Gore's film/book is one. And again, if receiving a pittance in funding disqualifies one from rational discourse, what then about the far greater amounts of funding by environmental groups and governments who will continue funding only if results are consistently alarming? It's funny how receiving a tiny fraction of funding from Exxon that alarmists receive from environmentalists "discredits" any of their work.

Lewis addresse Oreskes' study because Gore cites it in his film (this section also addresses the funding issue):

http://www.cei.org/pdf/ait/chXVII.pdf

*Yawn*

How many of you seen disc 5 of planet earth (bbc) dvd set?