An Inconvenient Truth

Status
Not open for further replies.
I remember reading in the 70's that there was going to be an ice age due to pollution in the atmosphere. Now its global warming. People forget that the polar caps on Mars are melting too, and there is global warming on Mars.

Sun is a variable star, and earth's orbit also is not completely stationary around the sun. The point is that there are too many variables that make a climate. There have been ice age in the past, and there also has been tropical climate in the artic circle as evidenced by fossils of Wolly mammoth with tropical vegetation in their stomach. I am skeptic about the political laced arguments by scientist. As I type this, the temperature outside is -16C with -35C windchill in West Michigan...the coldest day here in 20 years.

Below is a link to a counter argument.. I agree with the scientist that Kyoto is not the best way to go, as you would get minimal affect for monies spent.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0
 
Nice contribution to the debate Vivek.

Its good to see that no matter what the reasoning, there is a consensus on cutting back conventional resources...
 
kyoto

http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4372&highlight=kyoto KYOTO
nice subject carry on debating
When I started this thread in 2002.
Not a sigle reply until 2005
Total reply is 3 in 5 years.
This show how much we care about
climate change
Green-black-vlue- white revolution
Polution
Friendly debate
or any thing
any problem
concerning
Human beings
Jat Community
our life
our children life
mankind future.
most of the time good topic like this lost in personal issues.
Ego problem
some time in the past I appeal to discuss only problem & Issues = Subject
I was told you are the biggest problem of jatland. I stayed away for few years from the site.
We can see more and more problems now.
So where is the problem ?
Who is problem ?
This is Anadipana- Jattpana- Panga Lena.
Abhi tak to Jat Panchayat agree hi nahi hue hae ki Koe Glowal warming ki problem bhi hae. Hal to dur ki bat hae.
Jabki yah Kisan ki hi sabse jayda problem hae.
Rain ka hona- nahi hona- akdam mosam badlna- flood etc
 
Save Earth.

not a carbon neutral person...but...I do

- separate my household garbage for recycling
- Reduce it as much as I can
- keep the thermostat switched off when not required (wear a sweater or two to be cosy...it feels like indian winter time at home)
- take public transport when i can
- switch off light bulbs and unplug electronics whenever i can remember(keeps the place a little more spartan)
- love unpackaged stuff....lush is a good one for toiletries, st. lawrance market is great for food produce
- pursuade (to little success) my investment analyst husband that corporate social and environmental performance matters for the bottomline and thus to shareholders
- work and research in social and environmental finance.

I 've heard a lot about this movie by Al gore but cudnt got it yet.You are very right about coming gen., rather in life cycle, if we get chance to get human birth again, we might be infants again and if we dnt care at present we only wud be victims.I was reminded of a book where whole chapter was dedicated about it Dr Brain Weiss(only Love is real).Its really appreciative of you Priti ji to make a list and follow them.I will contribute on my own,family and friends.Good Luck.This thread should be continued as long as earth.
 
Earth has gone through these cycles of ice age and warmth before. Dr. Sallie Balinuis is a very respected scientist who is a full professor at Harvard. Here's an interesting interview with her.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30760.html

Dr. Richard Lindzen is a full professor at MIT. Here's an interesting interview with him.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3837

Indian climatologist
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1925164,0008.htm

Did you know that sun is a variable star and has been incredibly active recently.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060926_solar_activity.html
http://www.handpen.com/Bio/sun_freaks.html

The sad part is that the debate on global warming has become political instead of scientific, and failed academic like Gore have become authority figures with publicity seeking rock stars and alarmist media all profiting from this.

This doesn't mean that we should be wasteful...just recognize that earth is not going to end up like venus tommorow.
 
Last edited:
I dont understand why people have a problem with hype created around important issue. If it is an important issue, it should be hyped and somebody has to do the job of conveying the scientific knowledge in layman's terms.

With all due respect to the view of the Academics in the links Vivek, and agreeing with him in terms of nonclarity of purpose and effectiveness of regulations, From what I hear, there is a fair amount of consensus in the scientific community about global warming due to human activities, maybe thats because of the funding going down that channel, but then there are lots of agencies who stand to lose from the global warming argument who would be funding research too, so where's that bit of research. At the end of the day, human activities are destroying the planet keeping other things constant, looking around, its common sense. Now nobody is sure about tomorrow, an asteroid might come and hit the planet in all likelihood, there are several factors beyond control of humans. But the factors which are in our control should be paid attention to.

I dont know, maybe afterall, greed will be the solution afterall, checkout the link below on business case for paying heed to climate change....10% of all GHG emissions are from companies participating in the surveys...and they are doing something about it, even if only under investor groups' pressure...

http://www.cdproject.net/aboutus.asp
 
Last edited:
Indians should not feel guilty about GW

India has not been a major contributor to the phenomenon. Each American consumes energy eq to 51 Indians - they havent signed Kyoto either. Some ppl in far out villages dont even have electricity.
 
I suggest you go through the thread in its entirety...

India has not been a major contributor to the phenomenon. Each American consumes energy eq to 51 Indians - they havent signed Kyoto either. Some ppl in far out villages dont even have electricity.
 
recently saw the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." I fell asleep 15 minutes into it. I was declared guilty of dereliction of duty by other hippies present at the screening. :P :P So, I yawned and walked out and slept in the parking lot. Damn the freaks!
 
:) may you have fair amount of sleep before your next documentary, or the next thing you watch be on hummers and anti government themes to have your attention :D.......

recently saw the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." I fell asleep 15 minutes into it. I was declared guilty of dereliction of duty by other hippies present at the screening. :P :P So, I yawned and walked out and slept in the parking lot. Damn the freaks!
 
:) may you have fair amount of sleep before your next documentary, or the next thing you watch be on hummers and anti government themes to have your attention :D.......

Is that the best you can do? Make me feel like a scumbag?

What is it with the hummers? Why do you hippies take out your ire on hummers? They are just another vehicle which consume slightly more fuel compared to smaller vehicles. But, considering the fact that they serve a niche market, there aren't many hummers around. Even the ones who have hummers use it as secondary means of transport considering the costs. So the net effect of having hummers is close to zero.

Dont get into the anti-govt debate. You seem to be a smart person. Make some valid arguments instead of character bashing of those who dare to disagree with you. Your god Al gore flies around the world in a private jet which burns several hundred times more fuel than my little car. Not to forget his mansions, each of which consumes nearly 20 times of electricity consumes by an average household.

All you hippies can do is indulge in character assassination and still fail to make conclusive arguments.

I will bow to you if you give up your urban lifestyle and start living in the trees. Until then I have just one word for you and your fellow pot smoking hippies: HYPOCRITES.
 
Did u wake up on the wrong side of the bed or what??

I just stated your preferences in jest and if that makes you feel like a scumbag, then its your problem man...

And thats the best you can do, anybody who has a different belief system than you- categorise all of them as hippies....what are you? A cocaine sniffing drug lord!!

Get out of your chicago school (even they are changing late in their lives- read milton friedman's late interviews) and think of things as they are in reality, there is nothing like efficient markets in reality. I have never supported ineffective governance and regulations.....and do you have a better alternative??

Arnold has a fleet of hummer and I have nothing against him, he's doing good...and this stand alone report on Al Gore's lifestyle, they seem to me like character assasination when the critiques have run out of gas on arguments....

For your sensibilities, maybe these two chicago school people may appeal to you better as cost analysis of global warming....
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2007/02/global_warming_1.html

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2007/02/global_warmingp.html

As for living in trees my dear, I would seriously consider more progressive and innovative suggestion from you than going back to being primitive....



Is that the best you can do? Make me feel like a scumbag?

What is it with the hummers? Why do you hippies take out your ire on hummers? They are just another vehicle which consume slightly more fuel compared to smaller vehicles. But, considering the fact that they serve a niche market, there aren't many hummers around. Even the ones who have hummers use it as secondary means of transport considering the costs. So the net effect of having hummers is close to zero.

Dont get into the anti-govt debate. You seem to be a smart person. Make some valid arguments instead of character bashing of those who dare to disagree with you. Your god Al gore flies around the world in a private jet which burns several hundred times more fuel than my little car. Not to forget his mansions, each of which consumes nearly 20 times of electricity consumes by an average household.

All you hippies can do is indulge in character assassination and still fail to make conclusive arguments.

I will bow to you if you give up your urban lifestyle and start living in the trees. Until then I have just one word for you and your fellow pot smoking hippies: HYPOCRITES.
 
Last edited:
I do not belong to Chicago School. I belong to the "Jiyo aur Jeene Do" school. I categorize all hypocrites who want to make people like me feel bad for our belief in a liberty-based system as hippies.

I do my part to reduce my footprint on the environment. Infact I do more than Al Gore, Barbara Streisand, George Clooney, Leonardo Di Caprio put together.

The problem I have with the so-called environmental conscious movement is that they want to impose their values on me while they fly around in pvt. jets, have 10 mansions, all airconditioned from floor to ceiling etc.

Come on yaar, your right to expect environment consciousness on my part, ends at my doorstep.

Did u wake up on the wrong side of the bed or what??

I just stated your preferences in jest and if that makes you feel like a scumbag, then its your problem man...

And thats the best you can do, anybody who has a different belief system than you- categorise all of them as hippies....what are you? A cocaine sniffing drug lord!!

Get out of your chicago school (even they are changing late in their lives- read milton friedman's late interviews) and think of things as they are in reality, there is nothing like efficient markets in reality. I have never supported ineffective governance and regulations.....and do you have a better alternative??

Arnold has a fleet of hummer and I have nothing against him, he's doing good...and this stand alone report on Al Gore's lifestyle, they seem to me like character assasination when the critiques have run out of gas on arguments....

For your sensibilities, maybe these two chicago school people may appeal to you better as cost analysis of global warming....
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2007/02/global_warming_1.html

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2007/02/global_warmingp.html

As for living in trees my dear, I would seriously consider more progressive and innovative suggestion from you than going back to being primitive....
 
This Documentary is a Hog wash....But people are simply not interested to consider any other view point.

Those who beileve in Logic and Science you can check these points for yourself.

Few Facts

1) CO2 is not responsible for greenhouse effect. It is not a greenhouse Gas.
2) Earth has always been changing and continous to change. Ice Age, Hot Periods etc etc

So whats resposnible

1) Sun Storms
2) Cosmic Rays entering into Trosphere (Pls google them both to find details explainations)


This has been hyped by

1) The socialists who want us to go back 100 years.
2) The (so called) Enviornmental Scientist who want Govt funding
3) The Whole Environment Industry whose bread and Butter depends on it.

And It has also been Hijacked by

1) By policy makers and politicians who dont want countries in Africa and Asia should ever develop.
2) Another way to increase Tax

The dont want that millions living in poor countries should have a better quality of life.

And media is completly biased and manage to brain wash ignorant and informed alike.

Deepak
 
Last edited:
"The Great Global Warming Swindle"?

I 've been following this thread since it started and then thought to refresh my ideas with surfing. Channel 4 has also aired a documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" by Martin Durkin who has claimed the cause of Global warming (?) is not co2 rather solar disturbances and More of Co2 is emitted by volcanos than human activity.

I have gone through many sites and found some interesting facts about book written by Al Gore. One is here by Ian Murray, titled "Gorey Truths
25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore".

"1. Carbon Dioxide’s Effect on Temperature. The relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2), on which the entire scare is founded, is not linear. Every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere contributes less to warming than the previous one. The book’s graph on p. 66-67 is seriously misleading. Moreover, even the historical levels of CO2 shown on the graph are disputed. Evidence from plant fossil-remains suggest that there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere about 11,000 years ago as there is today.
2. Kilimanjaro. The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting not because of global warming but because of a local climate shift that began 100 years ago. The authors of a report in the International Journal of Climatology “develop a new concept for investigating the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers, based on the physical understanding of glacier–climate interactions.” They note that, “The concept considers the peculiarities of the mountain and implies that climatological processes other than air temperature control the ice recession in a direct manner. A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climatic conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro
3. Glaciers. Glaciers around the world have been receding at around the same pace for over 100 years. Research published by the National Academy of Sciences last week indicates that the Peruvian glacier on p. 53-53 probably disappeared a few thousand years ago.

4. The Medieval Warm Period. Al Gore says that the “hockey stick” graph that shows temperatures remarkably steady for the last 1,000 years has been validated, and ridicules the concept of a “medieval warm period.” That’s not the case. Last year, a team of leading paleoclimatologists said, “When matching existing temperature reconstructions…the timeseries display a reasonably coherent picture of major climatic episodes: ‘Medieval Warm Period,’ ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Recent Warming.’” They go on to conclude, “So what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger…or smaller…temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future temperature predictions.”
5. The Hottest Year. Satellite temperature measurements say that 2005 wasn't the hottest year on record — 1998 was — and that temperatures have been stable since 2001 (p.7
6. Heat Waves. The summer heat wave that struck Europe in 2003 was caused by an atmospheric pressure anomaly; it had nothing to do with global warming. As the United Nations Environment Program reported in September 2003, “This extreme wheather [sic] was caused by an anti-cyclone firmly anchored over the western European land mass holding back the rain-bearing depressions that usually enter the continent from the Atlantic ocean. This situation was exceptional in the extended length of time (over 20 days) during which it conveyed very hot dry air up from south of the Mediterranean.”

7. Record Temperatures. Record temperatures — hot and cold — are set every day around the world; that’s the nature of records. Statistically, any given place will see four record high temperatures set every year. There is evidence that daytime high temperatures are staying about the same as for the last few decades, but nighttime lows are gradually rising. Global warming might be more properly called, “Global less cooling.” (On this, see Patrick J. Michaels book, Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.)
8. Hurricanes. There is no overall global trend of hurricane-force storms getting stronger that has anything to do with temperature. A recent study in Geophysical Research Letters found: “The data indicate a large increasing trend in tropical cyclone intensity and longevity for the North Atlantic basin and a considerable decreasing trend for the Northeast Pacific. All other basins showed small trends, and there has been no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity. There has been a small increase in global Category 4–5 hurricanes from the period 1986–1995 to the period 1996–2005. Most of this increase is likely due to improved observational technology. These findings indicate that other important factors govern intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones besides SSTs [sea surface temperatures].”

9. Tornadoes. Records for numbers of tornadoes are set because we can now record more of the smaller tornadoes (see, for instance, the Tornado FAQ at Weather Underground).

10. European Flooding. European flooding is not new (p. 107). Similar flooding happened in 2003. Research from Michael Mudelsee and colleagues from the University of Leipzig published in Nature (Sept. 11, 2003) looked at data reaching as far back as 1021 (for the Elbe) and 1269 (for the Oder). They concluded that there is no upward trend in the incidence of extreme flooding in this region of central Europe.
11. Shrinking Lakes. Scientists investigating the disappearance of Lake Chad (p.116) found that most of it was due to human overuse of water. “The lake’s decline probably has nothing to do with global warming, report the two scientists, who based their findings on computer models and satellite imagery made available by NASA. They attribute the situation instead to human actions related to climate variation, compounded by the ever increasing demands of an expanding population” (“Shrinking African Lake Offers Lesson on Finite Resources,” National Geographic, April 26, 2001). Lake Chad is also a very shallow lake that has shrunk considerably throughout human history.



Contd.................
 
Last edited:
Continued..............

12. Polar Bears. Polar bears are not becoming endangered. A leading Canadian polar bear biologist wrote recently, “Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear (sic) to be affected at present.”

13. The Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream, the ocean conveyor belt, is not at risk of shutting off in the North Atlantic (p. 150). Carl Wunsch of MIT wrote to the journal Nature in 2004 to say, “The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth’s rotation, or both”

14. Invasive Species. Gore’s worries about the effect of warming on species ignore evolution. With the new earlier caterpillar season in the Netherlands, an evolutionary advantage is given to birds that can hatch their eggs earlier than the rest. That’s how nature works. Also, “invasive species” naturally extend their range when climate changes. As for the pine beetle given as an example of invasive species, Rob Scagel, a forest microclimate specialist in British Columbia, said, “The MPB (mountain pine beetle) is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand.”

15. Species Loss. When it comes to species loss, the figures given on p. 163 are based on extreme guesswork, as the late Julian Simon pointed out. We have documentary evidence of only just over 1,000 extinctions since 1600 (see, for instance, Bjørn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist, p. 250).

16. Coral Reefs. Coral reefs have been around for over 500 million years. This means that they have survived through long periods with much higher temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations than today.

17. Malaria and other Infectious Diseases. Leading disease scientists contend that climate change plays only a minor role in the spread of emerging infectious diseases. In “Global Warming and Malaria: A Call for Accuracy” (The Lancet, June 2004), nine leading malariologists criticized models linking global warming to increased malaria spread as “misleading” and “display[ing] a lack of knowledge” of the subject.

18. Antarctic Ice. There is controversy over whether the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning or thickening. Recent scientific studies have shown a thickening in the interior at the same time as increased melting along the coastlines. Temperatures in the interior are generally decreasing. The Antarctic Peninsula, where the Larsen-B ice shelf broke up (p. 181) is not representative of what is happening in the rest of Antarctica. Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, acknowledges, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.” According to a forthcoming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate models based on anthropogenic forcing cannot explain the anomalous warming of the Antarctic Peninsula; thus, something natural is at work.

19. Greenland Climate. Greenland was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s than it is now. A recent study by Dr. Peter Chylek of the University of California, Riverside, addressed the question of whether man is directly responsible for recent warming: “An important question is to what extent can the current (1995-2005) temperature increase in Greenland coastal regions be interpreted as evidence of man-induced global warming? Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate.” (Petr Chylek et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 13 June 2006.)

20. Sea Level Rise. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not forecast sea-level rises of “18 to 20 feet.” Rather, it says, “We project a sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 m for 1990 to 2100, with a central value of 0.48 m. The central value gives an average rate of 2.2 to 4.4 times the rate over the 20th century...It is now widely agreed that major loss of grounded ice and accelerated sea level rise are very unlikely during the 21st century.” Al Gore’s suggestions of much more are therefore extremely alarmist.

21. Population. Al Gore worries about population growth; Gore does not suggest a solution. Fertility in the developed world is stable or decreasing. The plain fact is that we are not going to reduce population back down to 2 billion or fewer in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the population in the developing world requires a significant increase in its standard of living to reduce the threats of premature and infant mortality, disease, and hunger. In The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford writes, “If we are honest, then, the argument that trade leads to economic growth, which leads to climate change, leads us then to a stark conclusion: we should cut our trade links to make sure that the Chinese, Indians and Africans stay poor. The question is whether any environmental catastrophe, even severe climate change, could possibly inflict the same terrible human cost as keeping three or four billion people in poverty. To ask that question is to answer it.”
 
Continued-----

22. Energy Generation. A specific example of this is Gore’s acknowledgement that 30 percent of global CO2 emissions come from wood fires used for cooking (p. 227). If we introduced affordable, coal-fired power generation into South Asia and Africa we could reduce this considerably and save over 1.6 million lives a year. This is the sort of solution that Gore does not even consider.

23. Carbon-Emissions Trading. The European Carbon Exchange Market, touted as “effective” on p. 252, has crashed.

24. The “Scientific Consensus.” On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found here.

25. Economic Costs. Even if the study Gore cites is right (p. 280-281), the United States will still emit massive amounts of CO2 after all the measures it outlines have been realized. Getting emissions down to the paltry levels needed to stabilize CO2 in the atmosphere would require, in Gore’s own words, “a wrenching transformation” of our way of life. This cannot be done easily or without significant cost. The Kyoto Protocol, which Gore enthusiastically supports, would avert less than a tenth of a degree of warming in the next fifty years and would cost up to $400 billion a year to the U.S. All of the current proposals in Congress would cost the economy significant amounts, making us all poorer, with all that that entails for human health and welfare, while doing nothing to stop global warming.

Finally, Gore quotes Winston Churchill (p. 100) — but he should read what Churchill said when he was asked what qualities a politician requires: “The ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen.”


refernce--http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=

PS-My intention is not at all to load the site. I tried to give this topic a direction.

I'm still in confusion over the issue? Can anyone sum it up ? Preeti Ji?
 
Sure Samar, a little tied up right now but will sum it up soon....

22. Energy Generation. A specific example of this is Gore’s acknowledgement that 30 percent of global CO2 emissions come from wood fires used for cooking (p. 227). If we introduced affordable, coal-fired power generation into South Asia and Africa we could reduce this considerably and save over 1.6 million lives a year. This is the sort of solution that Gore does not even consider.

23. Carbon-Emissions Trading. The European Carbon Exchange Market, touted as “effective” on p. 252, has crashed.

24. The “Scientific Consensus.” On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found here.

25. Economic Costs. Even if the study Gore cites is right (p. 280-281), the United States will still emit massive amounts of CO2 after all the measures it outlines have been realized. Getting emissions down to the paltry levels needed to stabilize CO2 in the atmosphere would require, in Gore’s own words, “a wrenching transformation” of our way of life. This cannot be done easily or without significant cost. The Kyoto Protocol, which Gore enthusiastically supports, would avert less than a tenth of a degree of warming in the next fifty years and would cost up to $400 billion a year to the U.S. All of the current proposals in Congress would cost the economy significant amounts, making us all poorer, with all that that entails for human health and welfare, while doing nothing to stop global warming.

Finally, Gore quotes Winston Churchill (p. 100) — but he should read what Churchill said when he was asked what qualities a politician requires: “The ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen.”


refernce--http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=

PS-My intention is not at all to load the site. I tried to give this topic a direction.

I'm still in confusion over the issue? Can anyone sum it up ? Preeti Ji?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top