Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And I'm not trying to bring Bush really into this either...but there's a guy who hasn't built his career on an environmental message, but he's walking the walk.

I think his little wet-dream adventure in Iraq has messed his footprint up beyond repair.

That wasn't my point, and you know it

Just illustrating how 'green' is done for people of vast amts of wealth.

I know it wasn't. Just illustrating another inconvenient truth: Your boy ain't walking that walk.

But then, he ain't talking the talk either. So, I give him that.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The first scientific meeting I ever attended on climate change was at Texas A&M University back in 1988. TAMU is not exactly a hotbed of liberalism. If posters criticizing Gore try to dispute that -- well -- let me just say I worked there for a couple years. It is not liberal.

A lot of the presenters, in hallway conversations, revealed themselves to be pretty conservative, as in "I'm not sure I can vote for George Bush because I'm not sure he's a real Reagan Republican".

One of those presenters gave a talk on the disappearing snowcap on Mt. Kilimangaro and how it appeared to be an indicated for climate change.

Another presented model reports discussing the stability of the Greenland ice cap, and how increased temperatures would no be expected to cause melting there. The evidence has since then changed that guys mind. More recently, he has been an author on scientific papers documenting how some of the ice caps in Greenland are melting much more quickly than can be accounted for by modern climate models. In hallway conversations, this scientist has now been wonderful if a "climate runaway" -- like Venus -- might not be implausible. He hasn't said this yet, though, in peer reviewed literature.

I could go on.

There is a very substantial scientific consensus that global warming is real and caused by human activity. Let's keep in mind that IPCC is also awarded the Prize.

I find it fascinating that, in the popular media, climate change is discussed as though it were an idea full of scientific uncertainty. That is *not* what I see, as a practicing scientist (and a chemist, in a field rather far away from atmospheric science) reading Nature, Science, Geophysical Research Letters, and the like over the past decade or so. I guess the popular media needs to find controversy even where there really isn't any.

Very interesting. Good post.

[Fandango 1,440]

And I'm not trying to bring Bush really into this either...but there's a guy who hasn't built his career on an environmental message, but he's walking the walk.

I think his little wet-dream adventure in Iraq has messed his footprint up beyond repair.

along with the national debt and countless thousands of lives

and that relates to this how?

Perhaps Congress shouldn't have given him authority to go to war. Without their approval, Bush would've been reduced to a neutered puppy. Regardless of where you fall on the political scale...that is fact.

But people hear and read only what they want & selective blindness runs rampant!

Widge, I am going off on a tangent here, and I hope you don't take it personally cos I've quoted your post to do so...but omG, how ridiculous is this justification game that goes on here at VJ? Comparing two things to one another...one bad, the other worse...and using the worse off one to make the bad somehow 'less bad'.

Someone here biotches that an illegal killed someone....so someone else says 'well there's a lot of homegrown murderers too!'

someone mentions visa fraud with a lying & dishonest non-USC partner and someone will say 'yeah but my ex husband was worse and he was American'

and now we're talking about a carbon footprint...but now it's being compared to a legal war? Yes, I brought Bush up as an illustration of his home in TX only. Not to justify some 'do as I say not as I do and I bought a carbon offset credit' bullsh!t from someone who's supposed to be some sort of environmentalist.

But eh....it's vj so *sheesh*

Edited October 14, 2007 by LisaD

[GaryC 7]

What's odd to me is how that fringe element in the US thinks that they have it all figured out while the rest of the world has got it wrong. As I said earlier, there were the same type debates between the reasonable and the deniers when the scientific community came to a consensus that CFC's are tearing a hole into the ozone layer and that a change of course will be required to avoid a disaster. There will always be a fringe element that cannot accept some inconvenient truths. And while they're typically loud and all I take comfort in knowing that in the end they tend to matter little.

Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory

Survey of peer reviewed studies reveals less than 50% of published scientists believe global warming is man made. More skeptics than advocates among scientific community while IPCC claim majority endorse the theory .

Infowars.net | August 30 , 2007

Steve Watson

A new survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, has concluded that less than half endorse what has been dubbed the "consensus view," that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change.

In direct conflict with assertions by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a scientific consensus agrees it is 90% likely that man is responsible for warming, Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte's survey contends that only 45% support the theory and that is only if you include papers that merely lean towards endorsement.

Though the survey has not yet been released, the results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment , and science blog DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy which states:

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

Man made warming proponents have often pointed to a similar survey that was conducted by history professor Naomi Oreskes on peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003 which found that a majority of scientists supported the theory.

Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte sought to update the research and according to DailyTech, used the same database and search terms as Oreskes but reached a radically different conclusion.

The introduction and the summary of the IPCC's report was written entirely by politicians under the mandate of the UN, the input of actual scientists was minimal. In addition, all sections that were written by selected scientists were edited to comply with the report summary.

Some of the scientists involved even admitted that the IPCC models failed to accurately predict climate change and that "none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate".

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world and is not directly influenced by any governmental body.

Schulte's survey confirms the claim that the climate change momentum has shifted among prominent scientists who are now benefiting from a greater depth of research. A spate of new research papers has significantly chilled fears of global warming.

The new survey provides undeniable proof that the world is being sold a lie on climate change by a group of politicians and elite lobbyists who wish to seize on the opportunity to hype the global warming threat and use it as a means of social manipulation for political and corporate gain.

As we have extensively reported, it is the elites, the establishment and big business interests that are pushing these fears , not the scientific community.

People who still trust the platitudes of politicians and elitists who implore us to change our way of life, cough up more tax money, and get on board with the global warming religion save being linked with Holocaust denial, are as deluded and enslaved as the tribes of Mesoamerica who, unaware of the natural phenomenon of a solar eclipse, thought their high priests could make the sky snake eat the Sun, and therefore obeyed their every demand.

Politicians are professional liars, they make careers out of deceiving people and twisting reality to fit pre-conceived agendas, yet a cascade of otherwise rationally minded people are eager to blindly trust everything they have to say about climate change, no matter how delusional it sounds.

They are also willing to comply with the ridiculous overbearing "solutions" to climate change that will just coincidentally restrict mobility and freedom of travel, regulate personal behavior, empower and expand global government and reinvigorate the surveillance state - everything Big Brother ever wanted - but surely they wouldn't lie to us about global warming to achieve it, would they?

For a wealth of information on the man made global warming hoax check our archive which has scores of articles and multimedia files relating to the science of global warming as well as the agenda behind the hype.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/g...ade_warming.htm

[Scott & Lai 12]

and that relates to this how?

Perhaps Congress shouldn't have given him authority to go to war. Without their approval, Bush would've been reduced to a neutered puppy. Regardless of where you fall on the political scale...that is fact.

But people hear and read only what they want & selective blindness runs rampant!

Widge, I am going off on a tangent here, and I hope you don't take it personally cos I've quoted your post to do so...but omG, how ridiculous is this justification game that goes on here at VJ? Comparing two things to one another...one bad, the other worse...and using the worse off one to make the bad somehow 'less bad'.

Someone here biotches that an illegal killed someone....so someone else says 'well there's a lot of homegrown murderers too!'

someone mentions visa fraud with a lying & dishonest non-USC partner and someone will say 'yeah but my ex husband was worse and he was American'

and now we're talking about a carbon footprint...but now it's being compared to a legal war? Yes, I brought Bush up as an illustration of his home in TX only. Not to justify some 'do as I say not as I do and I bought a carbon offset credit' bullsh!t from someone who's supposed to be some sort of environmentalist.

But eh....it's vj so *sheesh*

You tell 'em, sister!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What's odd to me is how that fringe element in the US thinks that they have it all figured out while the rest of the world has got it wrong. As I said earlier, there were the same type debates between the reasonable and the deniers when the scientific community came to a consensus that CFC's are tearing a hole into the ozone layer and that a change of course will be required to avoid a disaster. There will always be a fringe element that cannot accept some inconvenient truths. And while they're typically loud and all I take comfort in knowing that in the end they tend to matter little.

Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory

Survey of peer reviewed studies reveals less than 50% of published scientists believe global warming is man made. More skeptics than advocates among scientific community while IPCC claim majority endorse the theory .

Infowars.net | August 30 , 2007

Steve Watson

A new survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, has concluded that less than half endorse what has been dubbed the "consensus view," that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change.

In direct conflict with assertions by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a scientific consensus agrees it is 90% likely that man is responsible for warming, Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte's survey contends that only 45% support the theory and that is only if you include papers that merely lean towards endorsement.

Though the survey has not yet been released, the results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment , and science blog DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy which states:

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

Man made warming proponents have often pointed to a similar survey that was conducted by history professor Naomi Oreskes on peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003 which found that a majority of scientists supported the theory.

Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte sought to update the research and according to DailyTech, used the same database and search terms as Oreskes but reached a radically different conclusion.

The introduction and the summary of the IPCC's report was written entirely by politicians under the mandate of the UN, the input of actual scientists was minimal. In addition, all sections that were written by selected scientists were edited to comply with the report summary.

Some of the scientists involved even admitted that the IPCC models failed to accurately predict climate change and that "none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate".

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world and is not directly influenced by any governmental body.

Schulte's survey confirms the claim that the climate change momentum has shifted among prominent scientists who are now benefiting from a greater depth of research. A spate of new research papers has significantly chilled fears of global warming.

The new survey provides undeniable proof that the world is being sold a lie on climate change by a group of politicians and elite lobbyists who wish to seize on the opportunity to hype the global warming threat and use it as a means of social manipulation for political and corporate gain.

As we have extensively reported, it is the elites, the establishment and big business interests that are pushing these fears , not the scientific community.

People who still trust the platitudes of politicians and elitists who implore us to change our way of life, cough up more tax money, and get on board with the global warming religion save being linked with Holocaust denial, are as deluded and enslaved as the tribes of Mesoamerica who, unaware of the natural phenomenon of a solar eclipse, thought their high priests could make the sky snake eat the Sun, and therefore obeyed their every demand.

Politicians are professional liars, they make careers out of deceiving people and twisting reality to fit pre-conceived agendas, yet a cascade of otherwise rationally minded people are eager to blindly trust everything they have to say about climate change, no matter how delusional it sounds.

They are also willing to comply with the ridiculous overbearing "solutions" to climate change that will just coincidentally restrict mobility and freedom of travel, regulate personal behavior, empower and expand global government and reinvigorate the surveillance state - everything Big Brother ever wanted - but surely they wouldn't lie to us about global warming to achieve it, would they?

For a wealth of information on the man made global warming hoax check our archive which has scores of articles and multimedia files relating to the science of global warming as well as the agenda behind the hype.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/g...ade_warming.htm

Has this piece actually been published in a scientific publication and been subjected to peer review?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I get that you don't like them for their political views, but it really shows a lack of character, IMO, that instead of arguing on the merits of what they have said, you attack the person themselves. There are plenty of people on the Right who I dislike (as well as some on that list above), but imagine for once, like the example I brought up of Thomas Jefferson and the Constitution, the ability to separate the message from the messenger. It would do this country a whole lot of good if we all tried that instead of turning it in to a sh!t throwing contest.

So you don't like Al Gore, fine. You don't think he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, fine. You don't think his documentary is accurate, fine. Now try to articulate that without it being about who Al Gore is. Just try it for once. You might start to feel better.

Don't you dare attempt to condescend to me, Stevo. Lack of character? First you question my 'authenticity' because I agreed with someone, now you're questioning my character? How dare you.

I am not making this into one big 'Conservative/Liberal' hoo ha like you seem to be making it out to be. I am talking my views on Al Gore...he's a hypocrite. Now he can cure cancer and be an ecological hypocrite, and if he got a Nobel Prize for curing cancer...well I'll be the first one dancing in the streets. But he got a Nobel Prize for all his 'work' with the environment....which he doesn't practice in his regular life. He chunters on and on about how man can make a difference, yet he is one of the biggest footprints around.

Which is WHY he shouldn't have rec'd a NP for essentially nothing but hot air. Talk is cheap. Action means something. We can argue all we want on what we THINK, but it is what we DO that really matters.

I have tried very much to explain my POV to you...but no matter how many times I do, you keep coming back with the same questions. Now regardless of your comprehension problems...I will not sit idly by why you cast aspersions as to my character....so not only do I see you owing me an apology, you need to be more mindful of what you're saying to me.

You kicked up a fuss when someone made assumptions about your character...didn't you? Even wanted a 'moratorium' on political threads because of it. Yet you freely bash others' characters with ease.

Interesting. And pathetic at the same time.

Lisa, I apologize if you think I was dissing your character. I was saying in general, this Swiftboating of public figures shows a lack of character and it's getting so predictable to the point of nauseau by the Ring Wing extremists of the Republican Party who've had a stranglehold on the rest of the Party for awhile now. They're losing their grip and we're now seeing divisions within the Party - that it's not so unified when it comes to many of the issues. That to me is a relief. Diversity of thought, IMO, is one of the traits that makes this country strong, not weak.

Let's be honest, anytime you hear about Al Gore, you roll your eyes back and dismiss whatever he says or might say as worthless based on your judgement of his character. That to me, is a disservice to this country. As I stated before, even fools are capable of saying something wise.

What a weak azzed fake apology.....You were dissing my character...read the red above. Don't make it like I lept to some strange azzed inference...you outright said so. Now you want to apol 'if I thought you were dissing my character'..that's a load of bollocks.

You keep mentioning 'swiftboat' and all other irrelevant things...that has nothing to do with my point here. You keep wanting to make this a partisan issue, when I've bent over backwards to explain to you my logic. You just don't want to listen.

When it comes to Al Gore and 'OMG! NEWYORK'S GONNA DROWN!!1111!!!eleventyone!!!111'....I most certainly dismiss it because of his actions. Talk is cheap...specially when there's nowt to back it up. His actions contradict his 'sky is falling!' schpiel.

I'd go find that Brittany Spears thread but I'm laughing too hard to care. You are a riot, Lisa. At least you keep it interesting here in VJ. Oh, man....LOL

[Fandango 1,440]

I get that you don't like them for their political views, but it really shows a lack of character, IMO, that instead of arguing on the merits of what they have said, you attack the person themselves. There are plenty of people on the Right who I dislike (as well as some on that list above), but imagine for once, like the example I brought up of Thomas Jefferson and the Constitution, the ability to separate the message from the messenger. It would do this country a whole lot of good if we all tried that instead of turning it in to a sh!t throwing contest.

So you don't like Al Gore, fine. You don't think he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, fine. You don't think his documentary is accurate, fine. Now try to articulate that without it being about who Al Gore is. Just try it for once. You might start to feel better.

Don't you dare attempt to condescend to me, Stevo. Lack of character? First you question my 'authenticity' because I agreed with someone, now you're questioning my character? How dare you.

I am not making this into one big 'Conservative/Liberal' hoo ha like you seem to be making it out to be. I am talking my views on Al Gore...he's a hypocrite. Now he can cure cancer and be an ecological hypocrite, and if he got a Nobel Prize for curing cancer...well I'll be the first one dancing in the streets. But he got a Nobel Prize for all his 'work' with the environment....which he doesn't practice in his regular life. He chunters on and on about how man can make a difference, yet he is one of the biggest footprints around.

Which is WHY he shouldn't have rec'd a NP for essentially nothing but hot air. Talk is cheap. Action means something. We can argue all we want on what we THINK, but it is what we DO that really matters.

I have tried very much to explain my POV to you...but no matter how many times I do, you keep coming back with the same questions. Now regardless of your comprehension problems...I will not sit idly by why you cast aspersions as to my character....so not only do I see you owing me an apology, you need to be more mindful of what you're saying to me.

You kicked up a fuss when someone made assumptions about your character...didn't you? Even wanted a 'moratorium' on political threads because of it. Yet you freely bash others' characters with ease.

Interesting. And pathetic at the same time.

Lisa, I apologize if you think I was dissing your character. I was saying in general, this Swiftboating of public figures shows a lack of character and it's getting so predictable to the point of nauseau by the Ring Wing extremists of the Republican Party who've had a stranglehold on the rest of the Party for awhile now. They're losing their grip and we're now seeing divisions within the Party - that it's not so unified when it comes to many of the issues. That to me is a relief. Diversity of thought, IMO, is one of the traits that makes this country strong, not weak.

Let's be honest, anytime you hear about Al Gore, you roll your eyes back and dismiss whatever he says or might say as worthless based on your judgement of his character. That to me, is a disservice to this country. As I stated before, even fools are capable of saying something wise.

What a weak azzed fake apology.....You were dissing my character...read the red above. Don't make it like I lept to some strange azzed inference...you outright said so. Now you want to apol 'if I thought you were dissing my character'..that's a load of bollocks.

You keep mentioning 'swiftboat' and all other irrelevant things...that has nothing to do with my point here. You keep wanting to make this a partisan issue, when I've bent over backwards to explain to you my logic. You just don't want to listen.

When it comes to Al Gore and 'OMG! NEWYORK'S GONNA DROWN!!1111!!!eleventyone!!!111'....I most certainly dismiss it because of his actions. Talk is cheap...specially when there's nowt to back it up. His actions contradict his 'sky is falling!' schpiel.

I'd go find that Brittany Spears thread but I'm laughing too hard to care. You are a riot, Lisa. At least you keep it interesting here in VJ. Oh, man....LOL

*sigh* more confusing the waters.

it's really quite spectacular!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And I'm not trying to bring Bush really into this either...but there's a guy who hasn't built his career on an environmental message, but he's walking the walk.

I think his little wet-dream adventure in Iraq has messed his footprint up beyond repair.

and now we're talking about a carbon footprint...but now it's being compared to a legal war?

Erm, just so we keep the facts straight, there is not actually any legal basis for the act of aggression that Bush has brought upon Iraq. Nowhere in the international law that the US has subscribed to is there any provision under which a trigger happy idiot can just attack another nation and willy nilly destabilize an entire region. Sign off by a Congress lacking balls or not. The Congress does not preside over the Middle east, you know?

That said, the environmental damage done by this war of Bush's choice (always remember that nobody forced him to go in - he fabricated the very case for this war) far exceeds any environmental damage any other single individual will ever be responsible for. To claim that he walks the walk is ludicrous.

Edited October 14, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[Fandango 1,440]

And I'm not trying to bring Bush really into this either...but there's a guy who hasn't built his career on an environmental message, but he's walking the walk.

I think his little wet-dream adventure in Iraq has messed his footprint up beyond repair.

and now we're talking about a carbon footprint...but now it's being compared to a legal war?

Erm, there not actually any legal basis for the act of aggression that Bush has brought upon Iraq. Nowhere in the international law that the US has subscribed to is there any provision under which a trigger happy idiot can just attack another nation. Sign off by a Congress lacking balls or not.

The environmental damage done by this was of Bush's choice (nobody forced him to go in) far exceeds any environmental damage any other single individual will ever be responsible for. To claim that he walks the walk is ludicrous.

hang on a sec...Bush is the big bad evil, but congress merely 'lacks balls'?

Give me a focking break here.

No one may have 'forced him to go'...but it was the job of Congress to stop him if they felt he was wrong. But I'm NOT getting into a war debate here cos that's not what this is about. Start a new thread.

And you're right, Reinhard....Bush is no environmentalist. That much we absolutely agree on. So how sad is it that his green house kicks the shiznit out of Mr Inconvenient Truth Himself's not so green house?

Thought so!

Edited October 14, 2007 by LisaD

[HAL 9000 96]

The first scientific meeting I ever attended on climate change was at Texas A&M University back in 1988. TAMU is not exactly a hotbed of liberalism. If posters criticizing Gore try to dispute that -- well -- let me just say I worked there for a couple years. It is not liberal.

A lot of the presenters, in hallway conversations, revealed themselves to be pretty conservative, as in "I'm not sure I can vote for George Bush because I'm not sure he's a real Reagan Republican".

One of those presenters gave a talk on the disappearing snowcap on Mt. Kilimangaro and how it appeared to be an indicated for climate change.

Another presented model reports discussing the stability of the Greenland ice cap, and how increased temperatures would no be expected to cause melting there. The evidence has since then changed that guys mind. More recently, he has been an author on scientific papers documenting how some of the ice caps in Greenland are melting much more quickly than can be accounted for by modern climate models. In hallway conversations, this scientist has now been wonderful if a "climate runaway" -- like Venus -- might not be implausible. He hasn't said this yet, though, in peer reviewed literature.

I could go on.

There is a very substantial scientific consensus that global warming is real and caused by human activity. Let's keep in mind that IPCC is also awarded the Prize.

I find it fascinating that, in the popular media, climate change is discussed as though it were an idea full of scientific uncertainty. That is *not* what I see, as a practicing scientist (and a chemist, in a field rather far away from atmospheric science) reading Nature, Science, Geophysical Research Letters, and the like over the past decade or so. I guess the popular media needs to find controversy even where there really isn't any.

Also particularly plausible is the pretty darn known fact that scientists tend to be pretty conservative on the political front, both academically and industrially, even though that detail tends to overshoot some of the more "analytical" experts around.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And I'm not trying to bring Bush really into this either...but there's a guy who hasn't built his career on an environmental message, but he's walking the walk.

I think his little wet-dream adventure in Iraq has messed his footprint up beyond repair.

and now we're talking about a carbon footprint...but now it's being compared to a legal war?

Erm, there not actually any legal basis for the act of aggression that Bush has brought upon Iraq. Nowhere in the international law that the US has subscribed to is there any provision under which a trigger happy idiot can just attack another nation. Sign off by a Congress lacking balls or not.

The environmental damage done by this was of Bush's choice (nobody forced him to go in) far exceeds any environmental damage any other single individual will ever be responsible for. To claim that he walks the walk is ludicrous.

hang on a sec...Bush is the big bad evil, but congress merely 'lacks balls'?

Give me a focking break here.

No one may have 'forced him to go'...but it was the job of Congress to stop him if they felt he was wrong. But I'm NOT getting into a war debate here cos that's not what this is about. Start a new thread.

And you're right, Reinhard....Bush is no environmentalist. That much we absolutely agree on. So how sad is it that his green house kicks the shiznit out of Mr Inconvenient Truth Himself's not so green house?

Thought so!

So we agree. Bush ain't walking that walk. Thank you.

[HAL 9000 96]

What's odd to me is how that fringe element in the US thinks that they have it all figured out while the rest of the world has got it wrong. As I said earlier, there were the same type debates between the reasonable and the deniers when the scientific community came to a consensus that CFC's are tearing a hole into the ozone layer and that a change of course will be required to avoid a disaster. There will always be a fringe element that cannot accept some inconvenient truths. And while they're typically loud and all I take comfort in knowing that in the end they tend to matter little.

Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory

Survey of peer reviewed studies reveals less than 50% of published scientists believe global warming is man made. More skeptics than advocates among scientific community while IPCC claim majority endorse the theory .

Infowars.net | August 30 , 2007

Steve Watson

A new survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, has concluded that less than half endorse what has been dubbed the "consensus view," that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change.

In direct conflict with assertions by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a scientific consensus agrees it is 90% likely that man is responsible for warming, Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte's survey contends that only 45% support the theory and that is only if you include papers that merely lean towards endorsement.

Though the survey has not yet been released, the results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment , and science blog DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy which states:

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

Man made warming proponents have often pointed to a similar survey that was conducted by history professor Naomi Oreskes on peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003 which found that a majority of scientists supported the theory.

Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte sought to update the research and according to DailyTech, used the same database and search terms as Oreskes but reached a radically different conclusion.

The introduction and the summary of the IPCC's report was written entirely by politicians under the mandate of the UN, the input of actual scientists was minimal. In addition, all sections that were written by selected scientists were edited to comply with the report summary.

Some of the scientists involved even admitted that the IPCC models failed to accurately predict climate change and that "none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate".

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world and is not directly influenced by any governmental body.

Schulte's survey confirms the claim that the climate change momentum has shifted among prominent scientists who are now benefiting from a greater depth of research. A spate of new research papers has significantly chilled fears of global warming.

The new survey provides undeniable proof that the world is being sold a lie on climate change by a group of politicians and elite lobbyists who wish to seize on the opportunity to hype the global warming threat and use it as a means of social manipulation for political and corporate gain.

As we have extensively reported, it is the elites, the establishment and big business interests that are pushing these fears , not the scientific community.

People who still trust the platitudes of politicians and elitists who implore us to change our way of life, cough up more tax money, and get on board with the global warming religion save being linked with Holocaust denial, are as deluded and enslaved as the tribes of Mesoamerica who, unaware of the natural phenomenon of a solar eclipse, thought their high priests could make the sky snake eat the Sun, and therefore obeyed their every demand.

Politicians are professional liars, they make careers out of deceiving people and twisting reality to fit pre-conceived agendas, yet a cascade of otherwise rationally minded people are eager to blindly trust everything they have to say about climate change, no matter how delusional it sounds.

They are also willing to comply with the ridiculous overbearing "solutions" to climate change that will just coincidentally restrict mobility and freedom of travel, regulate personal behavior, empower and expand global government and reinvigorate the surveillance state - everything Big Brother ever wanted - but surely they wouldn't lie to us about global warming to achieve it, would they?

For a wealth of information on the man made global warming hoax check our archive which has scores of articles and multimedia files relating to the science of global warming as well as the agenda behind the hype.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/g...ade_warming.htm

Has this piece actually been published in a scientific publication and been subjected to peer review?

Nope... just the majority of the "experts" that were asked.

[Fandango 1,440]

hang on a sec...Bush is the big bad evil, but congress merely 'lacks balls'?

Give me a focking break here.

No one may have 'forced him to go'...but it was the job of Congress to stop him if they felt he was wrong. But I'm NOT getting into a war debate here cos that's not what this is about. Start a new thread.

And you're right, Reinhard....Bush is no environmentalist. That much we absolutely agree on. So how sad is it that his green house kicks the shiznit out of Mr Inconvenient Truth Himself's not so green house?

Thought so!

So we agree. Bush ain't walking that walk. Thank you.

Are you intentionally being belligerant here?

He may not have hinged his career on being green, but his house surely is.

Edited October 14, 2007 by LisaD

[GaryC 7]

What's odd to me is how that fringe element in the US thinks that they have it all figured out while the rest of the world has got it wrong. As I said earlier, there were the same type debates between the reasonable and the deniers when the scientific community came to a consensus that CFC's are tearing a hole into the ozone layer and that a change of course will be required to avoid a disaster. There will always be a fringe element that cannot accept some inconvenient truths. And while they're typically loud and all I take comfort in knowing that in the end they tend to matter little.

Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory

Survey of peer reviewed studies reveals less than 50% of published scientists believe global warming is man made. More skeptics than advocates among scientific community while IPCC claim majority endorse the theory .

Infowars.net | August 30 , 2007

Steve Watson

A new survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, has concluded that less than half endorse what has been dubbed the "consensus view," that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change.

In direct conflict with assertions by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a scientific consensus agrees it is 90% likely that man is responsible for warming, Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte's survey contends that only 45% support the theory and that is only if you include papers that merely lean towards endorsement.

Though the survey has not yet been released, the results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment , and science blog DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy which states:

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

Man made warming proponents have often pointed to a similar survey that was conducted by history professor Naomi Oreskes on peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003 which found that a majority of scientists supported the theory.

Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte sought to update the research and according to DailyTech, used the same database and search terms as Oreskes but reached a radically different conclusion.

The introduction and the summary of the IPCC's report was written entirely by politicians under the mandate of the UN, the input of actual scientists was minimal. In addition, all sections that were written by selected scientists were edited to comply with the report summary.

Some of the scientists involved even admitted that the IPCC models failed to accurately predict climate change and that "none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate".

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world and is not directly influenced by any governmental body.

Schulte's survey confirms the claim that the climate change momentum has shifted among prominent scientists who are now benefiting from a greater depth of research. A spate of new research papers has significantly chilled fears of global warming.

The new survey provides undeniable proof that the world is being sold a lie on climate change by a group of politicians and elite lobbyists who wish to seize on the opportunity to hype the global warming threat and use it as a means of social manipulation for political and corporate gain.

As we have extensively reported, it is the elites, the establishment and big business interests that are pushing these fears , not the scientific community.

People who still trust the platitudes of politicians and elitists who implore us to change our way of life, cough up more tax money, and get on board with the global warming religion save being linked with Holocaust denial, are as deluded and enslaved as the tribes of Mesoamerica who, unaware of the natural phenomenon of a solar eclipse, thought their high priests could make the sky snake eat the Sun, and therefore obeyed their every demand.

Politicians are professional liars, they make careers out of deceiving people and twisting reality to fit pre-conceived agendas, yet a cascade of otherwise rationally minded people are eager to blindly trust everything they have to say about climate change, no matter how delusional it sounds.

They are also willing to comply with the ridiculous overbearing "solutions" to climate change that will just coincidentally restrict mobility and freedom of travel, regulate personal behavior, empower and expand global government and reinvigorate the surveillance state - everything Big Brother ever wanted - but surely they wouldn't lie to us about global warming to achieve it, would they?

For a wealth of information on the man made global warming hoax check our archive which has scores of articles and multimedia files relating to the science of global warming as well as the agenda behind the hype.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/g...ade_warming.htm

Has this piece actually been published in a scientific publication and been subjected to peer review?

I guess you didn't understand what this was. It's a survey of scientific papers on global warming published over the last few years. It shows that a majority of published papers by all scientists do not think that global warming is man made. In other words the consensus is in reality that man is not causing global warming.