forrestkc Posted October 18, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 114 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,015 Content Per Day: 0.60 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/15/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted October 18, 2007 John Moore, Special to the National Post Published: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 These are tough times for global warming deniers: Even denier-in-chief George W. Bush finally knuckled under in July and admitted not only that the world is warming up but that man is part of the cause. To continue to deny global warming, you have to first believe that the overwhelming majority of the planet's scientists are stupid, misguided or lying for personal gain. Increasingly. global warming deniers remind me of the "9/11 Truthers" who believe the Sept. 11 attacks were engineered by the U.S. government. Both groups have constructed elaborate, artificial factual universes to suit their conspiracy theories. The pied piper of global warming for a quarter of a century has been Al Gore. His movie An Inconvenient Truth has been instrumental in reshaping opinion in those few countries where denial remains a viable cottage industry. Dissenters look on Gore and his movie as a proxy for the greater theory: If they can just tear Gore apart, the whole theory will come tumbling down. That's why the deniers are so angry: Al Gore's Oscar could be written off to Hollywood's limousine liberals but a Nobel Peace Prize, now that's pretty hard to argue with. The deniers were thrown a bone last week by a British court ruling. There really wasn't any meat on the bone but Gore-haters have gnawed on it for what marrow they can suck out. The case was brought by an irate trucker fighting to prevent An Inconvenient Truth from being shown in U.K. schools. He won a pyrrhic victory when the judge failed to block screenings but ruled that children should be warned that it is a political film. And so it is. This is a film as much about Al Gore and his political aspirations as about the fight that he has made his life's work. The judge found "nine scientific errors." What Gore's chortling critics conveniently omit from their spin is that the judge also decreed that the film was "broadly accurate," and that "it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion." National Post columnist Terence Corcoran describes the nine errors as "truly major," insisting that each is "a pillar supporting hundreds of subsidiary claims that are now suspect." Actually, if we may continue with the architectural metaphor, the errors are less pillars than articles of furniture in a structure that remains very much intact. In the movie, Gore says sea levels will rise seven metres. Scientists say this is in the distant future and that in the near future the rise will be closer to one metre. The deniers insist this is a seven-fold lie, ignoring that the only thing in dispute is how much sea levels will rise and when. Apparently, that first metre will be a picnic. Gore talks of Pacific Islands being evacuated. No evidence for this has been found. Score one for the deniers. Gore talks of an ocean current slowing down or reversing, bringing cooling to the U.K. The judge finds that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says this is unlikely. Intriguingly, the deniers' embracing of this point requires them to acknowledge the wisdom of a body they have worked doggedly to discredit. The IPCC has been labelled everything from a conniving cabal of lying bureaucrats to a UN plot for one world government. The judge further criticizes Gore for using two graphs inaccurately. Gore's point is accurate, he's just using the wrong graphs to prove it. The deniers are crowing about this one because it's about the famous "hockey stick" temperature graph, which they pretend has been debunked. It wasn't debunked. It was replotted and -- surprise, surprise --it's still a hockey stick. The rest of the judge's points are trivial. He finds there are scientists who dispute the connection between global warming and melting snows on Kilimanjaro and a vanishing lake in Africa. Gore says coral reefs are bleaching but they aren't bleaching yet. There's no proof of drowning polar bears. Entire species of birds and insects are vanishing but the polar bear is fine for now. If the deniers want to consume themselves with finding holes in Gore's film like obsessive compulsives looking for the deliberate error in a pattern of Arab floor tiles, they can knock themselves out. The science that supports global warming exists independent of any errors or exaggerations in a would-be president's movie. For the deniers, that's where the inconvenience really begins. - John Moore is host of the drive home show on NewsTalk 1010 CFRB. Outside of Toronto he can be heard atwww.cfrb.com. john.moore@cfrb.com http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/is...1dd6ada&p=2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted October 18, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted October 18, 2007 Grace to you, There's that word, "DENIER," dun, dun, dunnnnn, again. (Should be said and followed by loud organ sounds.) Sounds kind of, kind of, kind of............ i-n-q-u-i-s-i-t-i-v-e. Peace, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgesbluegirl Posted October 18, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,234 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1987 Share Posted October 18, 2007 But aren't coral reefs bleaching? I read one of Sylvia Earle's books a year or two ago - great read, she's now my hero - and I remember her mentioning that divers were already noticing the effect of warmer sea temperatures on the reefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted October 18, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.27 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted October 18, 2007 Grace to you, I wanted to ask something. As Christians how are we take these signs? Should we look at them and yell the sky is falling? Or should we see them as an ensample of the coming days of which we were warned would come? In relation to the questions, another question. How then should we react? Peace, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kansasdad Posted October 18, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,227 Content Per Day: 0.18 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/10/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/19/1964 Share Posted October 18, 2007 The problem is that nature does more in one event to effect global warming then all man has done in our entirety. Our impact is very minimal. Therefore, changing what we do will also have very little effect. Coupled with the fact that Russia and China are not going to change anything. Whats the point. Can you really stop a volcano. Until you figure that one out, you are beating your head against a brick wall. Just trying to keep it real. Al Gore is about money, and power and nothing more. God Bless, K.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 (edited) The judge found "nine scientific errors." What Gore's chortling critics conveniently omit from their spin is that the judge also decreed that the film was "broadly accurate," and that "it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion." What the serpent told Eve was "based on" what God had said. So what? When the alarmists can explain why the temperature is rising on Mars and other planets also, they will find that there isn't much humans can do to have an impact on the weather of our solar system. When their "solutions" have nothing to do with taking money from everyone, I might consider that they have more than their own selfish interests in mind. Until then, I won't be any less environmentally sensitive but I also won't be an idiot who swallows the stuff they are trying to force upon us. Edited October 18, 2007 by traveller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrestkc Posted October 18, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 114 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,015 Content Per Day: 0.60 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/15/2005 Status: Offline Author Share Posted October 18, 2007 The problem is that nature does more in one event to effect global warming then all man has done in our entirety. Our impact is very minimal. Therefore, changing what we do will also have very little effect. Coupled with the fact that Russia and China are not going to change anything. Whats the point. Can you really stop a volcano. Until you figure that one out, you are beating your head against a brick wall. Just trying to keep it real. Al Gore is about money, and power and nothing more. God Bless, K.D. I am not sure how one comes to the conclusion that nature does more in one act than man has done in all of our entirety. Man has developed 40% of the world's land surface, the only comparable natural event I can think of would be a direct hit by a comet or asteroid, or super volcano. As to China, we certainly cannot expect them to do anything if the world's richest nation, with per-capita carbon emissions several times what theirs is, does nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kat8585 Posted October 18, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 1,360 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 7,866 Content Per Day: 1.24 Reputation: 26 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/18/1946 Share Posted October 18, 2007 No one has denied that we may be going thru a warming cycle, as has happened in the past, when it got even warmer. We just aren't responsible for it, nor is there anything we can do about it. GWB has knuckled under on other things he shouldn't have, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrestkc Posted October 18, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 114 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,015 Content Per Day: 0.60 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/15/2005 Status: Offline Author Share Posted October 18, 2007 When the alarmists can explain why the temperature is rising on Mars and other planets also, they will find that there isn't much humans can do to have an impact on the weather of our solar system. Uh, scientists do know why the temperature is rising on Mars. Mars Warming Due to Dust Storms, Study Finds Click here to find out more! Kate Ravilious for National Geographic News April 4, 2007 Temperatures on Mars have increased slightly over a 20-year period due to the action of Martian winds, scientists have found. New research has shown that dusty tornadoes called dust devils and gusty winds have helped the surface of Mars become darker, allowing it to absorb more of the sun's rays. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...rs-warming.html If you guys were not so knee jerk to everything science, you might figure out that these "stupid scientists" in reality are pretty smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrestkc Posted October 18, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 114 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,015 Content Per Day: 0.60 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/15/2005 Status: Offline Author Share Posted October 18, 2007 No one has denied that we may be going thru a warming cycle, as has happened in the past, when it got even warmer. We just aren't responsible for it, nor is there anything we can do about it. GWB has knuckled under on other things he shouldn't have, too. And your evidence is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts