March 13, 2007

NYT: is 'Inconvenient Truth' Alarmist?

Well, duh. A movie made by a politician and designed to build his base by conferring heretic status on anyone who disagrees with him just might be a bit...overstated.

The New York Times writes:

But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

Real data? We don't need no steenkin' real data!

Gore explained that he wanted to get his divine revelations important message out in "lay language" that he understands.

And, of course, as Mr. Gore and the mainstream media have been telling us, the debate is over:

“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.
"An Inconvenient Truth" - coming to your kid's school soon.

Posted by: Bluto at 09:13 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

1 well Duh!

Posted by: jane at March 13, 2007 11:06 AM (XXEg4)

2 "Real data? We don't need no steenkin' real data!"

Oh good lord. Don't you retards go on about "real data!" If you cared about date, you'd note that Iraq is a mess, Bush lied, Creationists are fools, and global warming IS happening, and it is at least partially caused by humans.

Certainly there are extremists who say we're facing a Water world situation, or some other such bullshit, BUT what you fail to realize is the fact that YOU are the extremists on the other side.

Enough evidence is in to dictate that we begin the long process of altering our consumption. Few are arguing that everybody start riding bikes, but what we are asking is that the government gently nudge industry towards cleaner ways, because the profit hungry goofs are incapable of doing it themselves. It's just the way capitalism functions.

So, fuck off.

Posted by: John at March 13, 2007 11:06 AM (S3Rzh)

3 #1 Has the world temperature been rising or falling over the last 200 years ?
#2 Is it possible that as the world population (with its carbon imprint) has risen in the last 200 years from 1 billion to close to 7 billion that humans might be possible for some of this increase in temperature ?
#3 Is it possible that a politician (or blogger) would use hyperbole to attempt to make a point ?

Posted by: JOHN RYAN at March 13, 2007 11:10 AM (TcoRJ)

4 Is it possible that as the world population (with its carbon imprint)
has risen in the last 200 years from 1 billion to close to 7 billion
that humans might be possible for some of this increase in temperature
?


John ryan,

is it "possible" Bigfoot is hiding out with Elvis in the vast forests of the Northwest?  Yeah, I suppose it's possible.  But it's highly IMPROBABLE given that humans only produce a fraction of 1 percent of the total CO2 output on the planet, the vast majority of it coming from natural sources.  That's scientifically veriable FACT.  But you don't want facts, you want Bigfoot and Elvis, and you want what all Leftists want-- the end of capitalism.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 13, 2007 11:53 AM (8e/V4)

5 John Ryan: Let's focus on the really intense industrial buildup since, oh, say the 1930s. A study of the temp records will show that most regions have cooled down since then.

Of course, that's a statisitical anomaly, because the 1930s were a time of record-breaking heat, but hell, if we're going to play little data games...


Alternatively, everyone could stop treating the issue as a test of religious fervor and a political football. We could even stop treating those scientists who disagree in part or whole as heretics at the Inquisition, and then base future actions on logic, rather than emotion.


 Dear John (not John Ryan): we really don't encourage inarticulate doofuses to post here unless they can provide some original comic relief. You need to work on the comic part, otherwise you're just, well...pathetic.


Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 13, 2007 11:57 AM (p52Ne)

6 and global warming IS happening

ROFLMAO! Its really cute how your too fucking stupid to even read simple sentences. The argument is not IF it is happening but rather the primary cause. Time to stop cracking walnuts with your forehead John.

gently nudge

Are you back on to the Spartan nipples again John

Posted by: Randman at March 13, 2007 12:10 PM (Sal3J)

7 gee, you really hit a nerve there Bluto, good job!

Posted by: jane at March 13, 2007 12:33 PM (XXEg4)

8 It's just the way capitalism functions.

And here is the real crux of the matter. 

This is about CAPITALISM, not the environment.  That's why Leftards are so eager to sign onto Kyoto, which is nothing but a wealth re-distribution scheme and would do nothing for the environment. 

I'm telling you, folks, what we have here is just more of the same anti-capitalist, ant-West, anti-consumption crap we've come to expect from the Left over the years.  Only now, with the rise of secularism, it's become a type of replacement religion.  That's why they keep citing "creationists".  Pure projection.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 13, 2007 12:38 PM (8e/V4)

9 Dude I love capitalism, but I'm not going to hump its leg, and kid myself that it is a perfect system like you. One of it's flaws is that in pursuit of profit, it is frequently hard for execs to do the right thing, and change a company's course if such changes have any negative impact on the bottom line. Are you going to deny this? If so, you are delusional.

Hence the need for regulation.

Incidently, there is an interesting article on Media Matters, which sites the fact that most of the individuals quoted have been debunct. So sorry.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703130003

Really though... none of this matters. Conservatives are currently circling the drain. Ciao!

Posted by: John at March 13, 2007 01:13 PM (qiTAx)

10 Incidently, there is an interesting article on Media Matters, which
sites the fact that most of the individuals quoted have been debunct.
So sorry.


I encourage everybody who reads this to hop on over to media matters and see for themselves how those scientists have been "debunked".  Here's an example of their "debunking":

"Massachusetts Institute of Technology
professor
Richard Lindzen was
identified in the article as a scientist "who has long expressed
skepticism about dire climate predictions." But the article failed to
mention that Lindzen has previously appeared on talk shows to contradict the
consensus on global warming and has falsely claimed that "there is no agreement
that the warming we've seen is due to man." Lindzen has also understated
the extent of warming that has occurred and the level of scientific certainty
that man has contributed to that warming. Indeed, during a May 26, 2006, appearance on CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, he agreed with Beck's
false claim that in the last century "temperatures here in America"
are "pretty much flat," responding: "Well, yes, as far as we
can tell."


OMG!!!  He appeared on talk shows and Glenn Beck!!!!  OMG!!!!

Read on, it's great.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 13, 2007 01:42 PM (8e/V4)

11 Not to mention their attempt to "debunk" those scientists is a classic case of playing the person, not the ball.  It's the only "rebuttal" they can offer when the facts get in the way of their truth.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 13, 2007 01:52 PM (8e/V4)

12 John: I believe you have been told before to keep your lefturd mouth in Canada. Go worry about the expanding polar bear popular and leave the rest to the big boys.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 13, 2007 02:46 PM (W7E9s)

13 Oh rooster he just wants to be more famous.  He got banned somewhere.



Posted by: Howie at March 13, 2007 02:52 PM (YHZAl)

14 AL GORE and CHICKEN LITTLE they are about the same

Posted by: sandpiper at March 13, 2007 03:37 PM (1mdPR)

15 As usual, sandpiper sums it all up in the pithiest and most succinct way.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 13, 2007 03:55 PM (p52Ne)

16 And I love how most of their solid 'debunking' has to do with ties to big oil, either real or imagined. 

So peer reviewed studies funded in any part by the Oil industry is automatically flagged as propaganda (never mind no one ever actually attacks the findings) while reports generated by politicians and scientists who have managed to turn what was once an insignificant area of science into a multi-billion dollar field employing tens of thousands are all pure of heart and have no vested interests in hyping their research with over the top estimates and wild leaps of logic.

I love the guy in the film who talks about how if your field of study is squirrel nut collecting and you want a research grant just add the word "are affected by global warming" to the end of whatever your proposal is and voila, instant cash.

Posted by: Bic at March 13, 2007 04:25 PM (hkwnD)

17 Scientific consensus. Bullshit. Consensus is for politicians, science is as Karl Popper has enunciated about falsification. The theory that global warming is due to humans is quite clearly falsified. Gore is a posing political opportunist arsehole.
 
One major volcanic eruption and CO2 not to mention sulphur dioxide and other gases will exceed anything done by humans over the last hundred years.

 


We clearly need to develop new sources of energy because current sources are finite, however that doesn’t mean not using the resources currently available to us.


Posted by: Sophoclese at March 13, 2007 04:35 PM (NIrSR)

18 Howie: Ha, ha. So I was right when I called him a punk.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 13, 2007 06:59 PM (W7E9s)

19 Yup.

Posted by: Howie at March 13, 2007 07:20 PM (YHZAl)

20 John, flush thyself!                      USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 14, 2007 01:23 AM (2OHpj)

21 Capitalists haters are usually commies that still haven't woke up.

Posted by: greyrooster at March 14, 2007 11:57 AM (W7E9s)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
43kb generated in CPU 0.0224, elapsed 0.0584 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.0501 seconds, 176 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.