Set spin cycle to OVERDRIVE, moonbats! Science, which is entirely independent of the dictats and messages required for acceptance by the liberal left and the Democrat Party, is pwning you!

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.

SEE MORE OF ALGORE'S ASSAULTS ON SCIENCE BELOW THE FOLD -->

Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.

Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."

Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.

Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 12:11 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 562 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I scoff at global warming as a crisis more than most, but I've got a problem with one of your postulations.

"Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity."

This seems untrue.  Global warming (which I'm reading as 'atmospheric warming' in this scenario) should make the wind carry less mass, making the shearing effect significantly less powerful on a global scale, right?  What am I missing?

Posted by: Kevin at July 01, 2007 02:59 AM (1cRKV)

2 Anwwer: ACCELERATION

Force = Mass TIMES Acceleration

Posted by: HumourFunnyDude at July 01, 2007 09:32 AM (lRQhm)

3 TIMES!?!  I thought It was MINUS!  AFK, I've got some calculations to rework.

Posted by: Kevin at July 01, 2007 10:04 AM (1cRKV)

4 Kevin: Nice thoughts.  Glad to see that people actually think
about all this science (and claimed "science") that's thrown about.



It seems to me, not being a weather guy and all, that increases in CO2
would raise the temps in the upper troposphere moreso than at the
surface.  Tropical cyclones are driven by the temperature
differential between the warm water and the cooler stratosphere. 
Warming due to "greenhouse gases" might possibly retard cyclone
formation.  Warming due to increased solar activity would very
likely promote cyclone formation, since water absorbes light energy way
better than does air.



The more I read the data, the more it seems likely that the earth has
not even warmed to the levels of the 1930's, and the warming that HAS
taken place is a little bit caused by us  but mostly by that big
yellow ball.

Posted by: RicardoVerde at July 01, 2007 10:23 AM (pqO2r)

5 It seems to be pretty widely accepted that the earth HAS gotten warmer. Whether (weather) or not human activity has contributed seems to be the mosre contentios issue.
Local coditions such as glacier growth are much more symptomatic of weather, not climate change, Percipitation plays an important part in the growth or decrease of glacieres, as well as tempreture.
Some people believe in the supernatural, some believe in global climate change.

Posted by: John Ryan at July 01, 2007 12:59 PM (TcoRJ)

6 Whether (weather) or not human activity has contributed seems to be the mosre contentios issue.

No sh*t, Sherlock. That's the entire point we've been making forever, with morons like you kicking and screaming the whole way.

Looks like you finally woke the f*ck up.

Posted by: Good Lt at July 01, 2007 01:35 PM (yMbfY)

7 Al Gore is idiot and a fanatic him and his global warming mantra proves he is crazy and out of his mind him and those crack-pots from GREENPEACE are as wacky as they come we dodged a bullet in 2000 when he did,nt get in the WHITEHOUSE and the SIERRA CLUB named this wacko their GREAT GREEN HOPE Yeah reducing america to a miserble 3rd world status all controled under the green swastika and the eco-nazis and the SIERRA CLUB is radical as well

Posted by: sandpiper at July 01, 2007 06:36 PM (YIXxO)

8 Whether (weather) or not human activity has contributed seems to be the mosre contentios issue.

Indeed.  But showing how careless the global warming hysterics are when they blame EVERYTHING down to the kitchen sink on global warming serves to illustrate just how hysterical and unscientific you marxist quacks really are.  Fuck, even cold winters are blamed on global warming by you nutjobs.  Anything and everything is blamed on global warming.  You are nothing but agenda-driven wackos.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 01, 2007 08:46 PM (yJKSD)

9 Well said, Ricardo, and I think I buy your theories.  But I'm stuck on the windshear.  Also not a meteorologist, I understand windshear to be the manifestation of wind moving at different velocities (diff speeds and directions) at different altitudes.  Those raised temps in the upper atmosphere that you mentioned should, in MY mind, LESSEN the power of them, since the air would have less mass, hence, less momentum.

I'm not so much doubting the idea, just wanting to understand it.  They have to be either saying that the increased temps would stagnate the upper atmosphere, lessening the chance of circular weather patterns forming, or they would increase the turbulence in all directions in the upper atmosphere, accomplishing the same goal.  I can't wrap my mind around either of those.

Posted by: Kevin at July 01, 2007 10:28 PM (1cRKV)

10 Well, I can see the right gearing up for another election year of trying to work on despratly needed change like defense and UN reform while simultainiously trying to run full bore against the electoral bell curve.
 
Beyond how obvious it is that no one here has any clue what they are talking about when it comes to atmospheric physics except maybe Kevin, I can't help but notice the conspiricism and demonization I am sensing here. It's all a marxist plot! The Sierra Club is behind it! We can't do anything about it without becoming a third world nation!
 
I suppose it would be futile to recommend reading from a site for a regular university (they would be in on the plot of course). If you want someone who is not a liberal but has extensive university experience, and has degrees that are relivent to the climate change debate I would recomment reading docter Steven Dutches personal site. He has a page about it in the "Science,Psuedoscience, and irrationalism" page near the bottom of his site. Everything there is worth reading, and I can say confidently that his site is what began my journey to the right wing on many issues.

Posted by: Jared Johnson at July 02, 2007 07:25 PM (xLkQz)

11 I too suspect the Sierra Club!  Isn't anyone even bothering to question why they didn't even bother to set up their headquarters in the Sierra Nevadas?  And 'club', the thing that's used to bash in the heads of baby seals, is part of their name?!?  No, it's clear that they are part of some illuminati plot.  Or maybe the masons (the free ones)!



Oh well, guess I'm stuck wondering about this windshear thing.  No big deal though.  I probably wouldn't have understood it anyway.

Posted by: Kevin at July 02, 2007 08:26 PM (1cRKV)

12 Jared: I never claimed to know much about this stuff, but I do know
people who formerly were Marxists (they never claimed to be such, but
were mighty fond of Che & Co.) and now call themselves "Greens" or
Progressives.  They are unanimous in their "fight" against warming.

The earth heats up and cools down.  What little science I do know
tells me the earth has been considerably hotter than it is now and cool
to the point where Illinois had ice year round.  If you have to
take one or the other, we are better off a little warmer. 
So,  CO2 offsets the mean temp  a couple of tenths, I'm
supposed to junk my pickup?  Nope. won't happen. Some folks are
really enthused about this stuff.  It gives them a sense of
helping the world or the "little people".  Great.  Go ahead.
There are still a lot of folks out there who really just want to punish
the "rich" and don't realize they hurt the poor when they do so.

AGW as it is promoted is a hoax.

Posted by: RicardoVerde at July 02, 2007 08:27 PM (pqO2r)

13 Ricardo,  in case I didn't say it before, I found your opinion enlightening, and thank you for writing it.  I too think AGW, as promoted, is a hoax.  But I'm starting to think that , factually speaking, it's completely untrue.  And not only untrue, but a huge pile of grandiosity, which in this case shows it's ugly face as 'humans are bad for the environment'.

And I DO mean 'completely untrue'.  I think we've entered a cooling phase, and each year will be progressively cooler until the late teens of this decade.  I'm a scientist, but no climatologist.  It will be interesting to see who is right.

Posted by: Kevin at July 02, 2007 10:05 PM (1cRKV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment