TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- An inconvenient untruth?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

An inconvenient untruth?

Interesting read, found off the "Hour of the Time", a great source for non-media-popular news reads.

Read Full Article with Graph Here...

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
November 12, 2007 - 01:57 ET

So, you think today's temperatures are out of the ordinary?

Nobel Laureate Al Gore does, and strongly made the case in his schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" with all kinds of neat slides and graphs.

Of course, despite incessant claims of a consensus concerning this premise, not everyone agrees.

In fact, climatologist Cliff Harris and meteorologist Randy Mann, who, amongst other things, run a website called Long Range Weather, have created an absolutely marvelous long-term global temperature chart that wasn't in Gore's movie, and every climate alarmist in the media desperately hopes you never see it:

Unfortunately, to configure the picture in the space available, the text inside is a tad illegible. Those interested in viewing a larger more readable image should go here.

That said, it's great stuff, wouldn't you agree? And, so is this article by Harris and Mann entitled "Could This Cycle �Global Warming' Finally Be Winding Down?" (emphasis added throughout):

For many years, following widespread ICE AGE predictions back in the 1970s, we've heard that our planet is warming up "at an alarming rate". A study from the National Academy of Science claims that "global warming is real and has been strengthening since 1981." These scientists say that the leading cause of this latest warming is the increasing emissions of greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide. They also state that by the year 2100, temperatures may increase by 2.5 degrees to as much as 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit above those of today.

Up until late 2002, much of the Northern Hemisphere north of Latitude 40 was actually becoming GREENER with less total ice. In fact, the average growing season had been extended by around 2 weeks based on satellite data at the time.

BUT, now, we believe that temperatures are beginning to cool again, particularly in north- central Canada where this summer there was only about 2 weeks between damaging freezes from late June into mid-July. One of our Harris-Mann Climatology clients went fishing between July 10-13 in northwestern Saskatchewan and reported "piles of ice" still on the ground in the region and temperatures close to the freezing mark.

Although the recent summers of the early 21st Century have been amongst the hottest and driest on record across most of the U.S., the winter seasons, by extreme contrast, have been some of the coldest in recorded history. For example, Siberia in Russia reported readings of -70 degrees in January of 2001.

Even if our planet is warming up as many scientists claim, we're still much cooler today than we were four to eight-thousand years ago. In fact, there were probably no mid-latitude glaciers about 800 million years ago, because the Earth's climate was so mild at the time.

Temperatures today are primarily measured over concrete surfaces compared to grassy ones years ago. We all know that concrete and asphalt absorb heat and this often results in higher afternoon temperatures, especially when we have conditions of very little wind. During a typical hot, summer day, high temperatures may be as much as 3-7 degrees warmer at the official airport or downtown locations compared to outlying rural areas.

Mann and Harris went on to discuss the heat island effect in a fashion that very much confirms the work of Anthony Watts previously reported by NewsBusters.

With that in mind, the reader is strongly encouraged to read the entire piece.

�Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters."

Edit: found it.

As much as I support critical thinking regarding this issue, I still believe that by the amount of pollution our world population is putting out how can it not have an effect? Its common-sense really and has nothing to with "science."

A more apt question is why the hate for Gore? Why is it in the Conservative agenda to support such facile arguments?

TBH that Harris-Mann stuff looks like 2nd rate conjecture and shows very little hard evidence/imperical data. Just my 2c.

quote:

Originally posted by jpgrdnr As much as I support critical thinking regarding this issue, I still believe that by the amount of pollution our world population is putting out how can it not have an effect? Its common-sense really and has nothing to with "science." A more apt question is why the hate for Gore? Why is it in the Conservative agenda to support such facile arguments? TBH that Harris-Mann stuff looks like 2nd rate conjecture and shows very little hard evidence/imperical data. Just my 2c.

but there was always polution before, be it volcano eruptions, wildfires, floods etc and earth was able to recover from that..

quote:

Originally posted by jpgrdnr As much as I support critical thinking regarding this issue, I still believe that by the amount of pollution our world population is putting out how can it not have an effect? Its common-sense really and has nothing to with "science."

Greenhouse gases are not necessarily pollutants. If it's not causing the ice caps to melt, Co2, for example, is relatively harmless, as it's cycled through trees and becomes oxygen again.

quote:

A more apt question is why the hate for Gore? Why is it in the Conservative agenda to support such facile arguments?

Because trying to stop something that may not actually exist is potentially going to cripple our economies and cost billions, if not trillions of wasted dollars to carry out such an initiative, would be my guess.

Take that, wacko environmentalists.

fucking ouch:

quote:

Originally posted by geroin but there was always polution before, be it volcano eruptions, wildfires, floods etc and earth was able to recover from that..

you may be right but we have made pollution many many times worse than what nature creates on its own. there are tons of pollutants that are not naturally occurring which are what damage our environment.

earth will be fine no matter what...

its us that are doomed

PS in short, CO2 levels are affected by the change in temperature, not the other way around. what a scam I love it.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam Because trying to stop something that may not actually exist is potentially going to cripple our economies and cost billions, if not trillions of wasted dollars to carry out such an initiative, would be my guess.

Yes! and many wasted scientist neurons

Its not about pollution. Poisoning the planet is clearly a retarded way to go about living.

Hell, I'm HUGELY against environmental destruction. I use few (and by few, I mean as few as I feasibly can, including gasoline and automobile) toxic substances of any sort in my home or my daily routine. I'm what most people consider a tree hugging hippy nature freak. However, I'm NOT about bullshit propaganda.

The point is, the religious fanatics backing "global warming" are often no different than any other fanatic, and are forcing a political agenda down all of our throats that WE FOOT THE BILL FOR. Look at the cutting back of public services and investment in infrastructure, all for the sake of garbage science backed programs like carbon cap and trade. It's horrid.

Beyond all that, I really just thought some people would be interested in reading something other than the "omg the world is going to burn up in a giant fireball of greenhouse turbonatoring nuclearactivating super haze!" like you'd conventionally find on any news broadcast

Hell, some would say we're on the precipice of a coming Ice Age. Now, the real question? Is that damned squirrel going to get the acorn or what?

quote:

Originally posted by Anas Attia CO2 levels are affected by the change in temperature, not the other way around.

Indeed. Man-made global warming (via the release of C02) is a myth, and a very dangerous one at that:

quote:

Originally posted by Spam trying to stop something that may not actually exist [may] cripple our economies and cost billions, if not trillions of...dollars

Check THIS out

Crank those coal fired power plants back up!

quote:

Originally posted by VERTiG0 Crank those coal fired power plants back up!

Clean-burning and reactivated coal is less than 5 years away anyway. I never would have believed that coal would outlive oil, but that's what it's starting to look like.

None of these articles cite journal articles as sources. In fact, they seem to cite no sources at all for their data. Given the amount of proper scientific attention the topic receives, the articles should be rife with cites.

Climate change isn't some trivial numbers game that can be adequately appreciated by reading one dubious and sourceless article on the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by DeleteFromUsers None of these articles cite journal articles as sources. In fact, they seem to cite no sources at all for their data. Given the amount of proper scientific attention the topic receives, the articles should be rife with cites. Climate change isn't some trivial numbers game that can be adequately appreciated by reading one dubious and sourceless article on the internet.

Why would a climatologist and/or meteorologist cite sources for a study that they conducted personally?

If you consider their credentials to be suspect then go ahead and ignore their study (it's certainly not the only one). But complaining that they haven't provided references makes no sense - they ARE the reference.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I never would have believed that coal would outlive oil, but that's what it's starting to look like.

coal can be manufactured. oil cannot.

quote:

Originally posted by Anas Attia earth will be fine no matter what... its us that are doomed

I totally agree with you here. The way humanity has become we're pretty screwed.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Why would a climatologist and/or meteorologist cite sources for a study that they conducted personally? If you consider their credentials to be suspect then go ahead and ignore their study (it's certainly not the only one). But complaining that they haven't provided references makes no sense - they ARE the reference.

Bullshit. Print this article in Nature or any number of other peer-reviewed journals and I'll take note.

All reputable science is peer-reviewed and referenced. Some guy writing about what he supposedly did (on the internet no less!) is not science - it's sensational speculation meant to inspire those lacking the wherewithal of critical thought and skepticism.

Journal articles are full of cites themselves, building off others' work and allowing the reader to verify claims made in the article. This is the basis of the evolution of science and society - not blog entries! Sheesh.

^^ spot on!

Al Gore in his video showed how they measured and concluded that Earth is at its hottest point in the last 700,000 years. This article hasn't done anything remotely similar, and is purely speculative.

There have been looooots of studies that have shown similar results. Years ago, when I was at U of T, there was a research result shown which displayed climate as a double hockey stick (high in the past, prior to industrialism, not quite as high today) rather than the typical "single hockey stick" graph.

The point is, this is not "politically correct" science. A lot of people are making a LOT of money off of pushing forward the man-made global warming agenda. Are scientists immune to that? No. With all of the flush grants coming in surrounding this "phenomena", it's simply extremely unpopular to criticize it.

However, some have and are, but have been marginalized by the "scientific" establishment. They've been kicked out of consortium's for it.

The Japanese don't agree with it either, entirely.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/ma...l-to-kyoto.html

It's similar to the laughable "Ozone hole" and CFC debacle. That's almost as great as "restless leg syndrome". Find something, decide arbitrarily that it is a problem, one caused by man, and attack it with everything we've got! Start the ban mobile, the mangod is on the attack!

reminds me the Y2K bug... people made alot of money off that.

Huge money. My neighbor spent over 5 grand investing in back up power and "insurance protection", etc. He worked in "risk prevention and assessment" for a big University. You can imagine their reaction to "swine flu". Brutal haha.

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon coal can be manufactured. oil cannot.

Well of course... but the issue is how much energy it takes to produce. If it costs more to produce the coal than what you get out of it, there's no point. It's surprising that it's gotten to the point where coal is actually "renewable" energy.

quote:

Originally posted by DeleteFromUsers Bullshit. Print this article in Nature or any number of other peer-reviewed journals and I'll take note.

Ah, and do you read Nature? Because the overwhelming majority of Global Warming hype out there (especially An Inconvenient Truth) is not only not peer-reviewed, but pretty much excludes the last 20 years worth of scientific research on the subject.

I've got a book in my living room with about 300 references, most of them peer-reviewed, which shows that exact same cycle of about 1500 years and the enormous amount of research from a dozen different fields that went into identifying it. By contrast, virtually everything I've read from the global warming alarmists has maybe 1 or 2 useful references if any. Hell, half of the "reports" use the same hockey-stick graph that was actually debunked by peer review.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Ah, and do you read Nature? Because the overwhelming majority of Global Warming hype out there (especially An Inconvenient Truth) is not only not peer-reviewed, but pretty much excludes the last 20 years worth of scientific research on the subject. I've got a book in my living room with about 300 references, most of them peer-reviewed, which shows that exact same cycle of about 1500 years and the enormous amount of research from a dozen different fields that went into identifying it. By contrast, virtually everything I've read from the global warming alarmists has maybe 1 or 2 useful references if any. Hell, half of the "reports" use the same hockey-stick graph that was actually debunked by peer review.

I didn't say climate change was real or fiction, I simply said the quoted article was dubious at best.

I am in no position to judge whether or not what we're dumping into our environment is causing the ice caps to melt. I personally know people who are doing their Ph.Ds in fields related to climate change and they're pretty sure we're digging ourselves a hole.

Indeed, are we willing to take the chance? There are vast and concrete benefits to reducing our carbon footprint which arguably exceed simply reducing our effect on climate change. While one may consider the means dishonest, I'd say that the situation is unfathomably complex and our response has been prudent, cautious and in our own best interests.

I'd imagine our children's children will be the first generation who can make decisive judgements on society's current efforts.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.