Al Gore's theory on global warming is being challenged.

[uli]

TBC: Global warming is increasingly shown to be based upon belief system, rather than a careful examination of the truth.]

Gore gets a cold shoulder [Exerpts]

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

click here to see the original article

[TBC: It is also interesting that others have compiled a number of serious errors in Gore's movie and a number of articles have appeared detailing the same:

http://uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/d...8f7bdc616075.]

[Adopted Son]

Gore is a fraud. Remember his statement, "I invented the internet"? What puzzles me are the scientists who ignore the poor methodologies used to draw the conclusion. It's bad science.

[Ort]

The earth goes through periods/cycles of heating and cooling. I believe the last one was some 20,000 years ago (according to science--not debating the age of the earth I'm just making a point).

Can somebody ask "Einstein" Gore how many trucks and buses and cars were around back then that contributed to global warming in that instance?

[bghtnpd4]

I agree, everyone.

[Adopted Son]

Ort, your common sense appears more realistic than the men of science. When scientist publish data on the unusual changes in our sun, as in the increase in solar radiation that now reaches the earth, why aren't they factoring this into the global warming theories?

Because it doesn't suit their purposes, that's why.

[IM2L844]

Because it doesn't suit their purposes, that's why.

What do you suppose those purposes are? Who stands to profit the most by winning over the public's opinion in this argument? Could it be the oil indu$try who $pend$ million$ to publicly dispute the cause of global warming and happens to be this administrations well documented long time corporate welfare pet?

I happen to be old enough to remember the tobacco lobby "scientists" reporting on a near daily basis that there was no scientific basis to prove that smoking had any deleterious health effects. OOPS! Now, we all know how that eventually turned out. A bunch of people died because of it.

What puzzles me is the persistent and insane suicidal posturing against erring on the side of caution.

There are no serious debates about the existence of a current global warming trend. Only the cause of it and the possible resulting effects of it are disputed.

Yeah, the jury is still out. We may never know the cause of it. Maybe it's a natural cycle or the direct intervention of God Himself...or, maybe, industry and the cumulative irresponsible self-indulgence of individual's excesses actually do affect the environment in a less than positive way. In my opinion, that's a bunch of meaningless hair splitting.

Is it enough that we disagree with someone's ideologies to risk the whole shooting match just to be able to say "I told you so"? What if that doesn't pan out? "OOPS" isn't gonna cut it.


Where, exactly, is the harm in changing our behavior to err on the side of caution? What is the benefit of betting the farm that Al Gore is wrong on this particular topic? I don't see the odds as overwhelmingly stacked in favor of doing that until enough data is in to put the matter clearly beyond dispute and behind us.

[Ort]

Since it is a fact that the earth goes through periods of heating and cooling, that is enough to blow Mr. Gore's "proof" out of the water. Also, I have read that his movie is so full of fallacies, that any competant scientist can refute them. Problem is, most of the people on this earth love nothing more than being sheep....joining whatever cause is the flavor of the day.
Al Gore says global warming is this big problem? Ok, Al must be right because people are into the cult of personality, and apparantly not interested in fact. You can read worldnetdaily, if they still have the article up about it. Plus, where is Gore's sheepskin that says he is educated in the field of science, or biology, or anything else? Why is Al Gore suddenly this expert? Because he says he is?

Al Gore said he invented the internet, do you believe him? Can you believe anything somebody says who claims he invented the internet, when everybody KNOWS it's a lie? Also, after re-counting the ballots for the presidential election no less than 3 times, and Gore still insisting that he won.........well, 'nuff said. Shalom.

[IM2L844]

Okay, I get it. You don't like Al Gore. Neither do I, but Al Gore is irrelevant. I haven't seen the film and I couldn't care less about Mr. Gore. Continuing to bash Al Gore does nothing to address the real issues and just sounds like a bunch of negative ultra-partisan demonizing.

Alright, let's talk about more than 12 thousand real scientists.

52 Nobel Laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, 195 members of the National Academies, and over 11,885+ other scientists have all signed a petition saying they agree with the assessments of the hundreds of other expert climatology scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and criticize the misuse and politicization of science in Washington:

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm

Be sure to investigate all the internal links from these documents.

And most real climatology scientists which are different than meteorology scientists (Dr. William Gray's field of expertise) disagree with Dr. William Gray:

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Gray.html

[Adopted Son]

IM2L844-You are correct. The non-technical layman can see there is global warming. We are educated enough to understand science wants us to believe there has been warming periods as well as cooling periods over time.

It is also plausible, but no where near proven, that CO2 emmissions "could" be a catalyst or additive to the natural warming period now being experienced. The trouble is, if we take AS FACT, (and we do not), that burning fossil fuels and cows farting are ruining the short run ecology, I suggest we are in fact powerless to affect the outcome.

Can we adopt some, "green" technologies to alter the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere? Yes. WE can. That "we" being those who believe and care to make the effort. But emerging ecomony countries couldn't care less. China? Russia? Don't even think for one minute they will deter the growth of their economies to slow down CO2 emmissions.

Then look at third world nations, who are so hungry for investment, that developers are reducing forest at alarming rates. Who is going to stop them?

In the final analysis, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong here. Man is incapable of altering the change. We don't even possess the technical knowledge on how to reduce them. Want to go back to the 1500s? Then be ready to ignore burning wood for warmth and light. I'll take a teepee myself, grow my own crops, and hunt I suppose. Do you think the emerging nations will put down their arms, and ignore their material needs or come here to the emasculated US and take what they want?

[Ort]

IM2L844-You are correct. The non-technical layman can see there is global warming. We are educated enough to understand science wants us to believe there has been warming periods as well as cooling periods over time.

It is also plausible, but no where near proven, that CO2 emmissions "could" be a catalyst or additive to the natural warming period now being experienced. The trouble is, if we take AS FACT, (and we do not), that burning fossil fuels and cows farting are ruining the short run ecology, I suggest we are in fact powerless to affect the outcome.

Can we adopt some, "green" technologies to alter the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere? Yes. WE can. That "we" being those who believe and care to make the effort. But emerging ecomony countries couldn't care less. China? Russia? Don't even think for one minute they will deter the growth of their economies to slow down CO2 emmissions.

Then look at third world nations, who are so hungry for investment, that developers are reducing forest at alarming rates. Who is going to stop them?

In the final analysis, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong here. Man is incapable of altering the change. We don't even possess the technical knowledge on how to reduce them. Want to go back to the 1500s? Then be ready to ignore burning wood for warmth and light. I'll take a teepee myself, grow my own crops, and hunt I suppose. Do you think the emerging nations will put down their arms, and ignore their material needs or come here to the emasculated US and take what they want?

[IM2L844]

I do not buy into the notion that sheepish acquiescence is a proper response to a perception of ineluctability and I think perpetuating that notion, at the grass roots level, is certainly unwise, counterproductive and a big part of the problem.

A plethora of new technologies are already in production, in the pipeline and on the horizon that could easily change your defeatist perception of mankinds impotence.

This is a situation that should be thought of in terms of a Pascal's Wager type scenario. If it turns out that there was really no need for the efforts we made to reduce greenhouse gasses...Oh well, it's all good...no harm-no foul. If, however, it turns out that we should have made an effort, but just couldn't be bothered with it because we negligently assumed it was "bad science" when it wasn't or we just thought it would be a waste of time when in reality we couldn have made all the difference, we will have needlessly made the wrong bet. What could possibly be the upside to that?

Where do you get the idea that the US would be emasculated by taking the lead on this? I don't get it.

Mankind is not the incapable, powerless abstraction you would have people believe. We are a clever, ingenious and crafty lot with an unquenchable desire to survive. If it is inevitable, so what? Where's the harm in trying to do the right thing?

I'm honestly not trying to be contentious, I'm just saying...

[Adopted Son]

[QUOTE=IM2L844;55723]

Where do you get the idea that the US would be emasculated by taking the lead on this? I don't get it.

QUOTE]

Anything less than drastic reductions is a waste of time, money, and jobs. I can't remember the source, but I read where China is experiencing exponential growth in emissions, due in part to the incredible growth of new factories and energy comsumption. We would have to not only arrest, and digress in our emissions, but somebody has to further reduce to counter the increases elsewhere.

Our job markets are already straining at the globalization of economies, without additional weight I believe we are headed for collapse. But let's add the "carbon tax" to our cost structure. Then add for the R & D costs to acheive a minor improvement in efficiency. (Ethanol is a great example of do-gooders attempt to alter fuel consumption-it did, it INCREASED it!) Those R&D costs are always passed on to the end consumer. Once these changes reduces our economy to sub 1920s, we will learn just how civilized our population truly is. (I myself am a savage)

I am somewhat intrigued by your repeated reference to man's capacity to solve his conundrums. Are you impressed with our wisdom and knowledge, or am I totally reading you wrong?

[IM2L844]

I think you are totally reading me wrong. Man does not have the ability to circumvent God's plans by way our own ingeniousness, but I don't believe that every little thing that happens has been predestined by God to happen. It is not a viable excuse for dismissive nolo-contendere acquiescence and complacent acceptance of the status quo.

I believe God created man with an advanced set of problem solving skills, an instinct for survival and a built in sense of right and wrong for a reason; so that we are, by design, without excuse and able to be held accountable for every choice we make in God's eyes. I am humbly, thankfuly, in awe and impressesed by that. We shouldn't, so lightly, take those gifts for granted. They were meant to be used.

I don't know the mind of God. As I said before, maybe, global warming is a part of God's plan that can't be circumvented, but there is no way for you or me to know that. In the mean time, I believe we are meant to make use of our God given talents to overcome adversities, however insurmountable we may perceive them to be, the best way we know how; not the least of which is through prayer and fasting. With God, nothing is impossible.

I hope that clears that up.

Now, I'm probably going to surprise you by agreeing with you, in part.

Because of this forum's apparent distaste for conspiratorial matters, I didn't mention it, but I think it is logically consistent for the issue of global warming to be used as another springboard toward globalization.

Security, saftey, spurious pandering to Christian values and patriotic partisan loyalty are the paths the so-called conservative politicians use to keep the huge voting block of the "Christian Right" in line , but nevertheless still leads straight to globalization.

The liberal left wingers are using personal rights (gay rights, pro-choice, etc.), liberty and various environmental issues such as global warming to steer people down a different path that nevertheless still leads directly to globalization.

These issues are successfully being used as a diversionary tactic. It really bothers me that many Christians are not able to see that the tail is wagging the dog even while they are the biggest dog on the block. I am closer to the conservative side of the issues and probably more sensitive and, consequentially, vocal against what I see as Christians being duped into a zombie like political "megga ditto's" mentality.

However, with all that said, I still think it is prudent to err on the side of caution when it comes to environmental issues so far as it concerns individuals making personal choices to behave more responsibly towards God's creation as well as supporting some funding of research into alternative energy sources.