CNN's Collins: "He was once the biggest loser; today just call Al Gore an Oscar winner"
February 26, 2007 11:53 am ET
On the February 26 edition of CNN Newsroom, while playing a clip of Davis Guggenheim, director of the documentary film An Inconvenient Truth, and former Vice President Al Gore, the film's narrator, accepting the award for Best Documentary Feature during the Academy Awards, host Heidi Collins said, "He was once the biggest loser; today just call Al Gore an Oscar winner."
From the February 26 edition of CNN Newsroom:
COLLINS: He was once the biggest loser; today just call Al Gore an Oscar winner. All the Academy Award champs when we go Hollywood, next in the Newsroom.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
I think we all lost in 2000. The tale of subsequent events supports that claim.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
You stole my thunder "Greekfurnace."We would have had a real leader with an intelligible, legal, moral, effective, honorable response to 9/11. There would be 75,000 troops in Afghanistan, with real nation building of the kind that brings honor to America.
Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden would be in a federal penitentiary with Gen. Manual Noriega, the Uni-Bomber, and Terry Nichols, as the Taliban would have already turn them over to us as they had offered to Bush/Chaney!We would have real leadership in the world intelligence gathering, and still maintain our standard of democracy, our rights, and our liberties. We would still be a democracy, not the shame of the free world, the scoundrel of the planet we have become!We would still have a surplus budget, SSI would be solvent, or on its way, Medicare would be reformed, solvent and available to more Americans!We would have our honor back; we would be the leaders of the free world by example, instead of at the point of a gun!!
Happy Thoughts;Dan GradyWow! What was the point of calling Gore a loser there? I know Miss Collins merely read from the prompter, but to whoever wrote that, it was just uncalled for.
I agree, Al Gore is far from a "loser" He won the popular vote in 2000, was a great Vice President for 8 years, a great Senator. Just an outrage to even suggest he is a "loser" The only loser he is CNN.
If Gore could be called the "biggest loser", then how shall we refer to the guy who got FEWER votes of the American People in that contest?
Yeah, we have to call him "President", but shouldn't he just be president of the five Supreme Court Justices who installed him in office while ignoring the will of the American people? I know, I know. Republicans want to win, even when rigged by partisan jurists and delivered by antiquated technicalities.
The trick is to be able to send thousands of American troops off to die for nothing ... THAT is the power coveted by these win-at-any-cost neocons. That, and pumping up the profits of the biggest corporations.
The biggest, ultimate loser? America herself.
Well said, we have lost so much because of the stolen election in 2000. Al Gore is not a loser, America is.
He still is the biggest loser for promoting that science fiction piece of trash which will be laughed at for generations.
Just like we still laugh at those stupid scientists who tried to tell us that the earth was round. Not to mention that crazy stuff about the earth being 4.5 billion years old. Ha! Ridiculous. I still get a chuckle out of that one.
or that the next ice age was coming in 1975 and icebergs would be in our backyards.
Scientists sure nailed that prediction didn't they?
You're right. We should listen to oil company executives instead. Why would they lie?
You're absolutely right, Leather. But why stop criticizing scientists for screwing up in 1975? Science has a horrible track record. They're always wrong. I can't think of a single significant scientific theory that wasn't later ammended and refined if not disproven. Newtonian physics? Incomplete. Bohr's model of the atom? Inaccurate. But you're implying that we should dismiss all subsequent claims about gravity and atoms because flaws with the original theories were discovered.
So, if we take your argument seriously, we should abandon science as an enterprise completely, since science only offers reasonable explanations for facts, and never absolute Truth.
Funny... I have this weird feeling a deja vu... Oh, right -- weren't we havng these debates during the Enlightenment?
There was never any scientific consensus in the 70's about global cooling. That canard is looney toones. The only reason you keep trotting it out useless as it is, is because you got nothing. Global warming is real, its got the scientific community behind it whily YOU have only wingnuts and the energy industry. Keep denying the sky is blue.
Four or five billion years is a large population of years. The weather and its variability over the last one hundred years, or over the last thousand years, or over the last three thousand years, is not a significant sample (Probability and Statistics 101) in terms of the subject population and the question at hand, which is: are we significantly outside normal variation in terms of the long-term model and the population (4 0r 5 billion years) being studied?
Does Gore address this issue, taken by itself? I have not seen the film.
Then rent the film.
Many of the studies that went into the latest IPCC report included paleoclimatic research - i.e. "proxy" records such as tree rings and ice cores.
One of the interesting bullets from the Summary reads:
What question is begged by this, though, is how high exactly one should set the bar before taking any action? And, furthermore, do advocates of the "essentially-do-nothing" approach have any responsibility for quantifying the risks inherent in their strategy?
Thank you...
Veddymoch.
Soitenly.
I have heard this argument before about "sample size" and it did make me rethink the scientific conclusions regarding Global Warming.
However, at no other time in human history has there been as much pollution thrown into the air as there is now. The Industrial Revolution has lead to the development of cars, trucks, airplanes and a slew of other machinery that belches contaminants into the air. We have a responsibility to do more to correct our waste-producing actions to the benefit of everyone on this planet.
THAT is what Al Gore and this documentary are trying to accomplish.
That's a good point.
Concerning the sample size argument, atmosphere and climate as we know it most certainly has only existed for a handful of years compared to the immense depth of geologic time. In the first 3.4 billion years of earth's existence the atmosphere was an inhospitable gas cloud. Only after the planet itself cooled sufficiently was water accumulated into bodies. Another billion years of slow plant respiration would pass before oxygen would be created in life sustaining proportions.
At about one and a half billion years old climate is a young woopersnapper compared to deep time.
But is the sample size of years even that relevant? It seems that the current rate of polar ice melt compared to the rate of ice melt in the geologic record is the more significant analysis. And the melt rates are proportionately out of whack with the known data of melt rates. Then again, I don't work for a petroleum company so I don't have a vested interest in promoting fossil fuel emissions.
By far the most CO2 in the last few years than anytime in the previous 600,000. Case closed. It's human activity.
Your helmet is on too tight
helmethead seems to have a phobia against science.
Maybe take a science class first... then criticize the scientific merit of the documentary.
Or watch NASAtV for a while
Of course. In this day and age... there's no excuse (save sheer ignorance or willful neglect) to deny that we (humans) play a role in the global climate. There is no debate.
There are thousands of scientists who say Global Warming is not caused by man.
There is a debate. The Global Warming Chicken Little Cult just wants to stifle debate.
If the stakes weren't so high Leather I'd agree with you. A healthy skepticism is good, however in this case it involves our very planet. Nothing is gained if we ignore the "chicken littles" whether they are wrong or right. If they are right and we don't take steps to correct the problem we are all doomed. I'll err on the side of chicken little thank you.
Where is that good ole conservative 1% doctrine, pre-emptive strike mentality when it comes to this looming global climatic crisis?
I mean there is vastly more supportable evidence of human induced global warming than there ever was of Iraq-Al Qaeda links or wmd.
What gives neocons?
There are thousands of scientists who say Global Warming is not caused by man.
No, there are not. There is a huge body of peer-reviewed research that supports the hypothesis that global climate change is caused by high concentrations ofhuman generated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There is no significant peer-reviewed research that disproves this hypothesis.
Thank you. The operative word(s) is/are "peer-reviewed"... another 'easily' overlooked facet of right-wing/big biz 'research'. Science (hard science) does not work in a bubble or by itself or on the assumptions/fears of a minority. Remember 'cold fusion'? Those jokers were blown out of the water almost immediately (following some hot press by USA Today, etc)...
I'd like to see LeatherHelmet's research of the 1000's. You can post tinker-toy websites all day long... there are 10/1 papers accepted by legitimate publications who agree that human beings affect and will continue to harm the global climate unless something is done about it.
What's LH's beef anyway? You got some heavy stock in Big Oil? What the hell do you care? Just want to prove those 'durned libruls' wrong again? Get over yourself.
It's sheer, blind hatred of Al Gore. The ostriches would rather drown with their heads in the sand than admit Gore could possibly be right about anything.
I agree with that. I don't really understand it... but, I agree.
"peer-reviewed"
You're stealing my points before I can post them... ;>)
"Peer-reviewed" is the magic phrase that distinguishes legitimate scientific studies and findings from half-baked notions. In any field of science no reputable scientific journal will publish the results of studies without prior peer-review. In the IPCC global warming report, for example, my understanding is that several hundred of the top scientists in the world were indentified and invited to participate. Half of them, to my understanding, were given the task of studying practically every available shred of data, studies, reports, etc., and to report their conclusions. Then their findings were critiqued (peer-reviewed) by the other half of the top scientists. Jeez, it's hard to argue with standards that stringent...
You got it. We see a lot of pieces covered by MMFA by jokers who have no idea what the 'scientific method' is meant to represent. Instead we hear a lot of "It is because I say it is!" ... To a guy like LH, apparently that's good enough. His ire reveals much more about the mentality of a follower than it does about folks interested in legitimate answers.
Here're some legitimate sites LH may want to peruse... If it'll do any good. EPA, NCDC, UNEP...
Leather, maybe you need to understand science more.
Science is not 100% sure of atomic structure, did you know its called atomic theory (like evolution)? The math says they are there, x-rays say they are there.
But because light is a wave (and a particle), well to make it short, we can't see them! So therefore the atomic theory can not be proven 100%.
But the concrete, steel and oxygen around you say Atoms exsist.
Thousands?
Name three with any credibility.
"There are thousands of scientists who say Global Warming is not caused by man."
First of all, I doubt seriously there are "thousands" of such scientists. But put on your leather thinking cap... who funds scientists who try to cast doubt on global warming and its causes? Hmmm... how about ExxonMobil? Let's see, ExxonMobil showed earnings last year of 39.5 billion dollars... 36.5 billion dollars the year before. Even though implementing standards to control harmful emissions may chip into oil industry profits oil companies, such as British Petroleum, are now ackowledging that the oil industry is playing a part in global warming and are agreeable to at least attempt to reduce harmful emissions. Not ExxonMobil, though... Hell, if they did it might mean their profits might drop to only 36.5 billion dollars again next year. Greed... pure and simple. That's what's driving this irresponsible refusal to accept any reponsibility for global warming... or to even quetion whether global warming exists. Open your eyes...
"There are thousands of scientists who say Global Warming is not caused by man. There is a debate. The Global Warming Chicken Little Cult just wants to stifle debate." - Leatherhelmet
<SARCASM>
I know, it's unforgivable. It's like how Holocaust deniers can't get a fair hearing in this country.
There are lots of people who claim the Holocaust was exaggerated. There is a debate. The Holocaust Chicken Little Cult just wants to stifle debate.
<END SARCASM>
This is what's wrong with the "Fair and Balanced" approach to reporting. Not all sides deserve equal coverage. Fox is more than happy to present arguments against supposedly "liberal" views, even if those arguments are without merit, as long as they can be framed as oppressed, stifled, minority positions.
The funny thing is, of course, that these views are rarely stifled: in the case of the argument that global warming is either non-human-caused or non-existent, there's plenty of money available to fund the cause and plenty of venues to publish the work. It's just that most experts don't think the argument holds up.
("But", say Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, et. al., "what do those egghead elitists know, anyway?")
Try to understand the mindset of those who discount science.
An example is seen in inner city schools, where a terrible problem is PEER PRESSURE to not "give in" to authorities and STUDY. A student who makes good grades is stigmatized by the bullies of ignorance, as being suck-ups to the establishment, and attempting to be "better" than their comrades from the streets.
What's REALLY going on is you have packs of losers who think they are not smart enough to compete if INTELLIGENCE is the guide, so they turn their attentions toward PUNISHING anyone who succeeds in learning, thus making the losers LOOK BAD.
It's been a common theme throughout history, the ignorant fearful who must destroy anything different, anything they don't have the capacity to understand, lowering standards to the point where they don't feel inferior.
GW Bush does his part, participating in discounting scientists as egg-head know-it-alls, elitists who think they're "better than everyone else". GW keeps it "real", by paying no attention to things like facts and learning and reading, instead having the self-certainty of right and wrong, and preferring going by his GUT to actually studying a situation.
And, of course, there are the religious fundamentalists, who see science as the ENEMY of their faith, because their holy books contain stories which are fantastic and impossible, if held to the laws of physics. Those stories must be believed as literally true to these religious zealots, and so science must be dismissed and destroyed.
We have our own visitors to this site who are of similar "bully the teacher's pet" attitude, as if proud of their own ignorance. We do well to remember their behavior is born of fear of inadequacy, and terror that it will be discovered they are not smart and are unlikely to become so. "Gimme that old time religion, it's good enough for me!" they state, and thus relieve themselves of any responsibility or obligation to make this a better planet. They plod along, getting by, with a focus towards tearing down anything new or innovative or based on SCIENCE, because they lack the imagination to build anything up. We listen to these Luddites at our own peril, and at risk of our future.
Is it merely a coincidence that religious leaders who embrace extreme far right political ideology in America call global warning a "myth", as Jerry Falwell does? (And don't forget those other science issues opposed by the religious right, such as evolution and stem-cell research.) Is it a coincidence that ExxonMobil, with its 39.5 billion dollars of earnings last year (a new record!) is the leading force behind the attempt to debunk global warming? The Republicans cast their lot with the oil companies and the right wing religion crowd to gain power and as a result we're becoming an anti-science country... all because of the Republican constituency. It's all about those "G" words... Greed and God.
C'mon...
You're stretching it a bit. I know you've been giving away all your excess to those less fortunate.
You're not greedy.
How much I personally give to those less fortunate is not only none of your business but it has absolutely nothing to do with the point. By their own admission, regualtions and restrictions designed to reduce man-made contributions to global warming would cut into the profits of the oil industry. ExxonMobil has been making record profits and, coincidentally, they are the leading force in attempting to debunk global warming. When you trade safety and security for the sake of obscene financial gain I would call that greed. And would you seriously argue that the Republican Party is not the protective ally of the oil industry?
I get it now.
YOUR money is YOUR business, not anybody else's. But,EVERYBODY ELSE'S money is YOUR business, not THEIRS: you send your hitmen to DC to get EVERYBODY ELSE'S money for those YOU deem less fortunate.
Try to remember that there are many who look at you and think YOU have more than your fair share, compared to them. And you will eventually reap what you sow.
Furthermore, you are an ally and enabler of BIGOIL. You refuse to use all the alternatives available to you.
"...that science fiction piece of trash which will be laughed at for generations."
Have you even seen the film, Leather?
Next time you're sick and go to the doctor don't believe a word of what he says about your ailment just because the science and medical experts are 99% supportive of your doctor's diagnosis. Call ExxonMobil instead for an opinion...
If doctors had the same scientific record as climatologists we'd all be dead by now.
And if climatologists played baseball they'd all be Hall of Famers.
You've never been more right.
Batting .500 is outstanding.
No discussion? Are they batting .500?
So, you haven't seen the film, then?
For most of the history of medicine, doctors had a much worse record. Calling on the services of a doctor, throughout most of the history of the profession, meant the use of unsterilized tools, no conception of germ theory, a notion of bodily humours, and a prescription for blood letting. And yet, you're essentially arguing that we should have abandoned medicine at the first indication of its fallibility.
Wow, lots of hate being expressed by you. I guess you are very partisan?
"science fiction piece of trash which will be laughed at for generations."
You meant the Iraq war right, but I think geneerations will be crying instead of laughing.
No leather it is the deny reality crowd that will be the punchline of history.
For reasons that are patently obvious and too long to list here I suspect that one day this period of Republican domination will be charitably know as The Era of Alternate Realities...
"that science fiction piece of trash which will be laughed at for generations."
Leather, perhaps with all your wisdom and knowledge of the subject matter and the applicable science, you would be willing to point out to us lacking your scientific expertise exactly what portions Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, are science fiction... and perhaps you could explain to us why you consider it a work of science fiction. Please, educate us...
he ain't gonna do that
after all , all he could do is mutely point to his TV running Limpballs re-runs...
Let's see what Dr. Lindzen has to say...
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
____________________________________________________________
Then there are these little tidbits the London Times pointed out:
Gore promoted the now-debunked “hockey stick” temperature chart for the past 1,000 years in an attempt to prove man’s overwhelming impact on the climate, and attempted to debunk the significance of the medieval warm period and little ice age
Gore insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most sciences believe does not exist
Gore asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930’s were as warm or warmerGore said the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice
______________________________________________________
Lastly, why wont Al debate the skeptic scientists?
http://volokh.com/posts/1169131766.shtml
______________________________________________________
I wouldn't go so far as calling ol' Al a loser, but he sure is fast and loose with the truth. Then again, look who he mentored under...
On scientific issues, I'd rather we look at what the actual research says. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page and the Volokh Conspiracy are not peer-reviewed scientific journals.
On this subject, it seems appropriate that the politics would follow the science. Matters like flag burning, school prayer, Christmas, etc. are legitimate fodder for the culture war. Science should not be.
I think you better check Dr. Lindzen's credentials again my good man. The Boston Globe has a piece you may like to read:
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/
Again, that is a feature, not a reviewed scientific paper. Show me some science, my good man, not opinion.
Are you really this dense? Read Dr. Lindzen's published "peer reviewed" papers for yourself. They are free on the Internets. In fact there are websites were you can email him yourself and he will send you any transcript of speech or presentations that YOU request.
Do the research on your own. The truth is out there.
Your links do not seem to show where Lindzen has had any peer-reviewed published studies in criticism of Global Warming.
Do your own research. I'm tired of spoon feeding the weak.
It is your job to support your own argument. Not mine. If you are not up to the task then don't expect me or anyone else to take you seriously. It's just that simple.
If it is my job to do your dubious research then I will say I have done as much research as I can of the research and I found that your argument is simply not supported and absolutely baseless.
Easiest research I ever did.
You are apparently just throwing out silly stuff and expecting everyone else to do the research and verification. It is a waste of my time. That's not how it works. Make and support your own points.
Thanks.
I already posted it for Another McCain. Look down the line. Better yet, see above post and do your own research.
I checked it out. I don't see any evidence of peer review on those items either. Check out my response.
Thank you for getting off your a$$ though. I am gonna make an honest poster out of you yet.
Maybe Stanford can Notarize it for you? I somehow doubt you'd except even that.
An honest poster I am. A lazy sniper you are. Now go back and do your homework before yer mommy gets mad.
I see the frustration is coming out. Don't blame me because you failed to make your argument.
:^)
Here's a starter:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjI4NTc0YWMzNTA3ZjRmYmJiMDRjNmI5MGEwZTFhM2E=
Interesting but irrelevant. Big whoop, someone disagrees with the consensus of scientific opinion that might affect the private sector and *gasp* he's from the libertarian Cato Insitute. Big surprise. So he tries to dismiss science with no science of his own. Nice try. Play again.
This is an opinion piece. It is not refereed scientific research.
He merely raised some questions.
Such as why does the IPCC's medium-range emission scenario suggest a rise in sea level of 8 to 17 inches, rather than Gore's twenty feet, by 2001.
The journal, Science, published data in Nov. 2005 showing that Greenland was shedding ice at a rate of 0.4 percent PER CENTURY. In Feb. 2006, the same publication published another paper indicating a sudden reversal in the RATE of acceleration of ice loss from the country's glaciers.
Kyoto, if adhered to by every signatory, would reduce Earth's temps by 0.07 degrees Celsius per half-century.
Finally, "peer-reviewed" is not peer-reviewed when there is only one hand-picked reviewer.
Hopefully, free speech is encouraged here. It is in Leather's National Review Online article, where links are given: globalwarmingisreal.com, ClintonFoundation.org,co2balance
Questions, such as the ones raised above, are excellent starting points for scientific research. Anyone interested, and competent to do the research, can pursue these questions - and I hope they do.
Mere opinion and speculation are not, in and of themselves, sufficient to call into question refereed, published research. There is no "freedom of speech" issue here - you are being a little histrionic to suggest there is.
Also, what does this mean:
That was a paraphrase from a paragraph in the article, wherein NASA's James E. Hansen's conclusions were questionable in that he had been known to hand-pick his own peer reviewer(s).
'Scuse me--I have to go take a Valium, this whole thing has me so upset.
Yes Leather Head just as we laughed at the scientists who said smoking cigarettes caused cancer.
Or better yet, how about the ones who said their were no WMD in Iraq. Hilarious!
I wish I could laugh at global warming deniers... but unfortunately, their madness will bring suffering to millions - as in Katrina, the harm will mostly come to the most vulnerable.
Generations to come will curse us, and not just the deniers - all of us who knew better and didn't fight harder.
You mean like when Al Gore said we would be hit with a record number of hurricanes this year and we had zero?
Guess what, we've had hurricanes as big as Katrina and we will have them again. But man can't do a thing about hurricanes. We can't predict them, we can't control them.
No, I don't mean anything of the sort.
Maybe you could do a little reading, and not just the sorts of things that support your opinions. I have been looking at a lot of the contrarian research and none of it adds up. How have you validated your opinions?
"You mean like when Al Gore said we would be hit with a record number of hurricanes this year and we had zero?"
I just tried to find a quote from where he said 2006 was going to be a record season. I can't seem to find it - would you mind providing a source, or shall I assume you have Al Gore confused somehow with Pat Robertson?
It appears LeatherCodPiece made the quote up. Big surprise. Don't expect these guys to fight honestly. It is futile.
Here is what the Pew Center said, and I'm guessing this is what Al was referring to:
http://www.pewclimate.org/hurricanes.cfm
Looks like our South-O-de-Border El Nino is to blame...
For Al's off year in the 2006 storm season that is...
Don't you hate it when the weather doesn't cooperate!
weather != climate
Straw men are more effective when they at least have some relevance to the matter at hand.
Take that up with Al then. That is the leap HE IS making.
When? Where?
Hogprint is apparently lying along with LeatherHelmet. They haven't even tried to post any legitimate links that demonstrate Al Gore has ever made such an assertion.
I have caught Hogprint doing this stuff before in a thread that drifted onto Sandy Berger. He claims to answer the question, but never does. Last time at least he admitted defeat. I wonder if he has that much honesty left in him this time.
You haven't caught me doing anything but debating on this site. I haven't pulled anything before. If I'm wrong, I admit it. I admitted to basing an argument on connecting dots and not backing it up with a link. Score one for you. It was a first.
As far as this issue and this thread, I've posted more links than any of you sycophants pointing you in the right direction for your direct questions. Not one of you yet has responded with anything other than talking points and boilerplate.
Feel free to catch me again...better yet debate me on the issue...if you can. ;)
Transparent Deflection.
You have provided links that quite typically answered questions that no on has asked you and avoided answering very specific requests that you back up your and leatherhelmet's highly dubious (at this point) claim about Al Gore:
"You mean like when Al Gore said we would be hit with a record number of hurricanes this year and we had zero?"
I suppose I will take your above post as another missed opportunity to redeem yourself.
Show where Al said it or stop making stuff up! Try to make an honest argument for once and back it up with facts instead of vague, transparent smears.
Here you are ladies...ask and ye shall receive:
The first from National Geographic that had a REAL SCIENTIST review the data. Note what they say about hurricanes and how the data could be used to support both sides of this issue:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060524-global-warming_2.html
The next is from Canada that just release a Global Warming review for their government last month. They are less than enthused:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
I should have added the National Geographic article took quotes and assertions from An Inconvenient Truth and had a scientist review the assertions. The one the above posts were asking for is covered in that article. Sorry for the oversight.
Ho Hum...
"You mean like when Al Gore said we would be hit with a record number of hurricanes this year and we had zero?" --leathercodpiece
Again. You have not cited where Al Gore has made any such claim to begin with.
I guess you didn't open the link...reading not your forte? I guess Al can spout any nonsense he wants if he has guys like you that will try to defend the indefensible.
Of course, I read the links. Duh? I didn't see anything that supported yours and Leatherhelmet's argument:
"You mean like when Al Gore said we would be hit with a record number of hurricanes this year and we had zero?"
Perhaps you can cut and paste the quote where Al Gore makes this supposed claim from your link? Anything less proves you and Leatherhelmet are caught lying and distorting...again.
I live in Colorado where I was supposed to be buried in 2 fresh feet of snow this weekend. It was 65 and sunny. They never get it right here!
I wasn't aware that Al Gore had created Star Wars Episode I.
that sounds like telling someone " I am sorry I slept with your wife ". Collins should be taken to a closed door meeting and reprimanded. It is possible to proofread something and ad lib when delivered, specially as easy as removing part of the sentence that adds nothing to the point.
Congrats to Al Gore...
In case you haven't yet seen An Inconvenient Truth, please do watch it as it is an excellent film. As you're watching it try to picture George W. Bush attempting to make any sort of similar presentation, and the stark contrast between Gore and Bush becomes glaring.
I love that old quip from Gore that he was walking proof that any child in America could one day grow up to... win the popular vote. ;>)
Anyway, who cares what Heidi Collins said? The real story speaks for itself...
'Zactly. Nuff said.
And just think...
Gore made that presentation on the first take, totally ad lib...
the man can think on his feet---draft him for Prez.
He ad-libbed it? You sure about that? I like Gore just fine, but I find that a bit tough to swallow.
Gore has given the presentation "more than 1,000 times" since 1989 (NYTimes). So, he may have done it in one take, but I don't know if I would call it ad lib...
"He was once the biggest loser . . ." - Collins
Funny . . . I've never known Al Gore to have a weight problem :) . . .
As for Leatheridiot, well, at least we can "laugh at that science fiction piece of trash for generations." That OTHER piece of fiction - the one that came from George Bush about WMD's in Iraq and Iraq having been involved in 9/11 . . . we'll be dealing with that for generations, too . . . we won't be laughing, though . . .
Can someone remind me of how many votes the "biggest loser" lost by? Oh yeah, he got *more* votes that the other guy. Funny how that works.
Gore!Gore!Gore!
Draft Gore for 2008! He doesn't want to run for president again, which makes him the most qualified. Everybody who's remotely interested please sign up at draftgore.com.
If SCOTUS hadn't overstepped their authority, and the electorate had been paying attention we'd all be in a much safer and saner world. It's not too late! Draft Gore now!
He doesn't want to run for president again, which makes him the most qualified
Kind of like Catch 22.
You bet a catch 22. Eisenhower didn't want to run either and he turned out to be a fantastic President.
Why did CNN call Kate Hudson a big loser, now winner? She finished fifth or sixth on "American Idol" and now she's won an Oscar.
What about Marty? He's a big loser, who hasn't won an Oscar in five tries.
CNN may be trying to be cute (a play off "The Biggest Loser" televison show), but it failed as badly as John Kerry trying to make a joke or George W Bush's foreign policies.
We really need an edit function for these posts... CNN didn't call Kate Hudson a loser.
A small point. I do believe her name is Jennifer Hudson.
Looking forward to seeing the movie.
I hate to say this but to me Al (whose movie was brilliant) is to me at least a LITTLE loser because he allowed Bush and Co. to steal the 2000 election. It's been demostrated, beyond Florida, that here in ohio where i live, well the nonsense at the polls was legion. But instead of doing something, anything, to at least contest the election, he rolled over like a pet dog and as a result, well as someone said previously, you know the rest. So I like Al a lot and he could have been a very good president, but he failed to fight for himself when he mosted needed to, and for that I'll love him but will never, ever forgive him.
I have to agree with this.
My biggest disappointment in Al Gore isn't that he gracefully stepped away from a job that he deserved in order to keep some modicum of "peace" in American politics, but that in doing so he disenfranchised the majority of the American voting public - just to save face.
Having said that, I'd be willing to give him a second chance, and out of the potential left-of-center 2008 candidates, I'd campaign for him most heavily, even though I can't stand his censorship-crazy wife.
To this day i believe it was joe Lieberman who didn't want to fight and rolled over.
She might have meant to say that Al Gore was the biggest loser in the sense that he did not emerge victorious in a race for the most powerful position on Earth. Obviously, that was not the way to say it. Maybe the person who wrote that for the teleprompter and/or Heidi Collins herself just had one of those moments where you mean to say something and it just comes out the wrong way and a few minutes later or a few days later you realize what you did and you can't even believe it. Either that, or there was something deliberate there. I think Gore is definitely considering running, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see Labor Day entries into the race on both sides by Gore and Gingrich.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Njguy93,
I agree with you that I think Gingrich will run. I am not sure about Gore. Maybe it was my tv, but in this day of television, I would think Gore would have slimmed down if he were going to get into the race.
I have to admit that you may have a point. I think Richardson's weight, quite frankly, is a bigger stumbling block to his candidacy than his race... what a sad commentary
valen,
I do not think it'll hamper Richardson as much as Gore. Most of us remember Gore as being much slimmer. Richardson may have been, but I doubt that is the public perception.
Oh well.. Good luck to them all.
I'm a little late coming in on the global warming discussion, and sorry if this has already been mentioned, but I am reading an interesting book called, "Shattered Concensus" edited by Patrick J. Michaels, Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Viginia, which contains essays by others who do not agree with the global warming studies.
I have only read the first chapter, but that chapter lays out, for peer review, the problems with the most famous of the global warming studies;i.e. the hockey stick graph by Mann and others. (I do not have the name of the study before me.) Anyway the scientific method used to come up with the graph showing global warming in the 1990's is fraught with error.
You can come to your own conclusions, but I think it would be worth it to see for yourself some of the problems and errors associated with this study.
Another book, I haven't yet read is: "Unstoppable Global Warming: every 1500 Years" by Richard S. Lindzen of MIT.
I understand many cannot get the books but if you are at all interested in the challenges to global warming read the recent articles by Thomas Sowell. He has three of them titled, "Global Hot Air". They can be found at townhall.com. Look up Sowell under columnists and click on archives.
As an addendum. When the data and programs were corrected, the graph shows a similar warming, but not as much as of yet, as what happened around the 1500's.
The revised study also shows we are coming out of a 200 year cycle of below average temperatures.
An interesting side note is that this study is based on tree ring samples around the world and uses weighted statistical models to come up with it's conclusions. The corrected study shows that the incorrect study by Mann assigned a disproportionate weighting to some pine tree found in the upper elevations in N. America which statistically had evidence showed it's growth unrelated to warming temperatures.
But, don't believe me. Go read it yourself. :-)
ps. Just to be clear, I am not disputing global warming. I am just relying a significant study that many use to prove global warming has some serious errors. The authors state there are enough errors in the first study to say there isn't enough proof that global warming is man made.
Again, these are opinion pieces, not peer-reviewed research.
I am all for people challenging the conventional wisdom. They should, however, be able to back up their hypotheses with good science. With the amount of money available from industry, it is significant that there is no sound, refereed research challenging the consensus viewpoint.
So, how high do we have to set the bar before taking action?
Dr. Lindzen's work is most certainly "peer reviewed". A little research goes a long way before spouting YOUR opinion.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm
I don't understand... this is a link to his web page.
Are you asserting that Lindzen has done refereed studies that refute the consensus view on anthropogenic climate change, and if so, that the presence of one contrary scientist somehow invalidates the work of thousands?
I am asking a real question here, I literally don't know what your point is...
I assume you mean the IPCC panel, because you haven't provided link one to further any point you've made. Blindly carrying water for the cause will get you brownie points in some circles but rarely here.
Anyway, add one more to the slow trickle of scientists that are fed up with the politicization of this subject:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/01/18/2500-less-1-2/
Yes, Hogprint
you cited a anti-global warming web site as a source? They have thier own agenda and put thier own spin on the issue. I believe its called being partisen.
The researcher for NOAA left due to his belief that the IPCC was becoming to political in nature. That factions were forming within the group and that they were making statements without his approval (but again that's his opinion, and since I beleive you are not a member of the IPCC you are not able to give us your opinion of the panel. For all we know, either the letter is not reported correctly or he just didn't like the people on the panel. That's human nature.)
You bring up an interesting point. You make reference to "thousands" of studies. Can you tell me where you get the "thousands".
Thanks,
AA, as I alluded to in the above rebuttal, by thousands we can only assume they mean the IPCC, because we see no links whatsoever to support anything in this movie.
Gore relied heavily on scientists in certain fields (biology for example) to bolster his assertions, but only a small fraction actually work on climate change as their discipline.
Here is the IPCC website:
http://www.ipcc.ch/
I found three scientists. I've yet to find the 2500 signatories yet. If anyone can help a poor soul, feel free.
As I understand it the IPCC is broken down into two groups. The scientific group that studies the data collected and a group comprised of government representatives (130 governments) that actually tabulate and write the report.
I'm leery anytime a government official (to include the likes of Gore) starts to trumpet science reports. You can bet there is an ulterior motive.
"I'm leery anytime a government official (to include the likes of Gore) starts to trumpet science reports. You can bet there is an ulterior motive." --hogprint
You cite some murky baseless speculation into the ulterior motives of politicians apparently on general principle, in stark contrast to the obvious self-serving interests of the oil companies. Doesn't that make you leary just a teentsy-weentsy bit of their motives? Nahhhh!!!
To bad you feel the need to lie like hogboy did. He did not say 'thousands of studies' he said 'the work of thousands' many of whom worked on the same studies together, or contributed data to those doing 'studies'. Research is much more complicated then you realize.
What lie was that? Please address what you take umbrage with. Just don't make a broadbrush statement.
"What lie was that?" --hogprint
It must be difficult to keep track at this point.
There is nothing on that page that indicates Lindzen produces peer reviewed studies on the subject of "Global Warming".
All we have is Hogprints exceedingly dubious assertions. No evidence they are true.
Hello, Hogprint
I read through your link and also checked with my college's database of peer-reviewed scientific works. (maybe you should look up that term).
In your link, although Dr. Londzen gives testimony (in 2001 and I believe 2002) that he does not believe that the global warming theory is correct, he has not done a study of global warming itself. He has not published these works in a peer-reviewed journal, for publication in the scientific community regarding this issue.
As far as the college's national database shows, no journals either. Opinion pieces (and he's entitled to his opinion), but thats all it is. He has taken his own research and applied it to the debate on global warming. He has not done research to support his claims. (although a disclaimer, I only read the titles and conclusions of his papers, not the entire papers.)
Once again....when an actual scientist does research and publishes it for peer-review in a national (recongnized) journal, than you have a leg to stand on.
Opinion pieces and personal opinions, are not peer-review. (and whoever said, "he got in trouble because he picked the people who peer-reviewed his work," stop lying, that's not how peer-review works.)
AD McCain,
I used Stanford's library database and here is what I found by Dr. Lindzen (you posted Lonzen above, don't know if that was a typo and maybe why he didn't come up?)
Can Increasing Carbon Dioxide cause Climate Change?
PNAS; Aug 1997; 94: 8835
and
New Greenhouse Report
Science: 1198: 249: 1093
Give it another try and you should be able to review.
Can Increasing Carbon Dioxide cause Climate Change? or this link for the entire pdf
PNAS; Aug 1997; 94: 8835
and
New Greenhouse Report [Letter to Science]
Science: 1198: 249: 1093
--hogprint
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I linked to the abstract and the entire pdf for the first citation. I do not see where it has been peer reviewed at all. I admit, I really don't know where it should necessarily be indicated. I would expect some reference to it being refereed. Didn't see that. Maybe hogprint can show me.
The second item appears to be a letter to the journal Science of some sort. It is not possible to tell the details about it from the web. It does not look like it is peer reviewed either from what little info I can gather from the abstract. It looks like a letter reply to a previous article by Richard A Kerr.
No evidence of peer review that I can see.
Closed mind posted:
"
No evidence of peer review that I can see."
Standford's library documents of peer reviewed material is where those documents were cited. Are you now claiming that Stanford University is not credible? Do you now require Dr. Lindzen to call you to confirm?
Keep moving the goalposts...
You have provided no links to allow me (or anyone else) to independently verify much of your information and claims. I never thought it was too much to ask for someone to backup their argument with some verifiable facts. I see I was apparently just asking a little too much from you and your argument. Pity.
:(
Science magazine. PNAS. All peer reviewed material out of Stanford University's library. I can't make it any clearer for you. I'm sorry you're don't have the capability to understand. Maybe you should go back to Myspace and Youtube for your entertainment.
Firstly, yes. Most of Science's articles are indeed peer reviewed. However, it looks like you exhibited a letter from Richard Lindzen. I have no reason to believe this letter was peer reviewed. We have no access to verify this. Maybe you can find a link to the article in question. I do not believe arguments on blind faith as it seems you would oddly prefer.
Secondly, I have no way of verifying what you say is true about Stanford's library search tool. There may indeed be items in that database that are NOT peer reviewed as I would think the apparent letter above would indicate.
I haven't seen any indication that every article in PNAS is always peer reviewed or that the article in question was actually peer reviewed. Maybe you can provide a link that demonstrates either of those two things.
I simply cannot just go with your apparently baseless and unsupported assertions. It is unfathomable to me why you persist with them. I don't understand why you refuse to support your argument with anything other than "because you said so".
I have given you more than ample opportunity to demonstrate your case. Now you are just repeating yourself without any new evidence. A good poster would have made his/her case in one post, but you are just dragging this out unnecessarily at this point. It is clear you have no argument.
The PNAS paper was merely a presentation to a colloquium and published in their proceedings. Unlikely to have been peer-reviewed. From my grad school days I am co-author on four scientific papers of this type that were published in various proceedings, and none was peer-reviewed.
"Peer-reviewed" usually means published in a peer-reviewed journal, after having gone through the process of peer review.
So you didn't even go to the Stanford site and look this up yourself? I've given you all the tools you need and have asked for. Stanford must be slipping in stature for the left.
I posted there are websites that post Dr. Lindzen's email. Drop him a line and he will be more than happy to entertain your requests. I can't seem to make a dent.
Again. You didn't provide any links to the Stanford site. Why should we go around looking for something you have alread supposedly done the legwork on? Just provide a link. Duh? Why is that so hard for you? I do it all of the time without incident. I don't think it is too much of a burden to ask.
Why should we have to email Dr. Lindzen? There should be other ways you can demonstrate your argument that I have repeatedly mentioned.
It is not anyone's job but yours to support your own argument. You are obviously too underequiped, lazy, stupid and/or arrogant to do so yourself. It makes it pretty hard for the rest of us to care when you won't even take the smallest amount of time to support your apparently dubious assertions.
If you made a decent argument, I wouldn't argue with it. That just isn't the case here.
Hogprint, just in case you read this
Actually I saw those two articles, both are non-peer reviewed artcles. (also no typos in my search, double checked).
Also just because something is posted on a universitie's web site does not make it fact. My first year Sociology 101 paper is on my college's database, but I hope no one ever uses it for anything. I winged the paper and wrote it 4 hours before class. Lucky for me the paper was more about style and using proper citations (it was a 101 class). The ideas presented inside 98% from my own mind, with a few quotes to back up my points. No real research went into the paper itself.
But it exists and is sitting there, until they archieve the paper, delete the database or I request they take it down.
ADMcCain,
This is the portal I used for Stanford U:
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/largest.dtl
It states at the top that the articles were peer reviewed. I really have no way to be 100% sure, much like your example. I can only take it on faith that is what the University posted.
I would think that a prof at MIT would have some peer reviewed material in his field. If I have time tonight I'll try and see if MIT has a similar portal and do more searching. I admit that the Stanford site was the first that popped up so I used theirs.
"It states at the top that the articles were peer reviewed."--hogprint
From HighWire Press' about page:
"HighWire Press is a division of the Stanford University Libraries, which produces the online versions of high-impact, peer-reviewed journals and other scholarly content."
It looks like my original skepticism has been validated. Thanks for finally supplying the link. I now see why you were so apparently reluctant to do so.
Your skepticism has been validated how? You haven't provided any information or links to state otherwise. Type in peer review Lindzen and see what you get. Of course you could have done this several times, but insisted I hold your hand.
No. Again. I only asked you to support your own argument. People do it all the time. You apparently object to it for some apparently silly reason.
However in my generosity, I have done some research on your behalf below.
"Your skepticism has been validated how?"--hogprint
Re-read the post you are replying to. It should be entirely clear although you are raising some severe doubts in my mind as to your reading comprehension ability.
I will give you a hint. Compare your quote to what the site says about itself. Pay careful attention to the bold type.
I hope you really aren't this obtuse.
ADMccain,
Found a MIT portal and typed in; peer reviewed, Lindzen, in the headers and this is what popped up:
http://library.mit.edu/F/T2J6JJR6455AYDL8CX8UR2KILPT8KJQFE78NSAMJILAUU5653S-70923?func=find-acc&acc_sequence=001814497
Looks like most are books, maybe a paper in there. Not sure how I can check to be 100% accurate, maybe your University will have better gouge? If you have the spare time and it's convenient, could you run a check?
This is an interesting article I stumbled upon. Seems relevant in light of the heated discussion on this thread:
http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/(cdlilraolt3eu255bvfisv45)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,10,11;journal,17,79;linkingpublicationresults,1:100656,1
And this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=109
Thank you for the links. They were very informative.
As for Lindzen, I don't doubt that he has indeed published peer-reviewed articles. The original point from Valentinian was: "[T]here is no sound, refereed research challenging the consensus viewpoint."
"I would think that a prof at MIT would have some peer reviewed material in his field."--hogprint
That is true. But it is not Valentinian's original point (that started this series of posts): "[T]here is no sound, refereed research challenging the consensus viewpoint." Talk about "moving goalposts". Nice try.
I have found what I believe to be refereed articles by Lindzen. However they do not appear to "sound[ly]" "challeng[e] the consensus viewpoint." IMO.
Does the Earth have an adaptive infrared iris? --Mostly a discussion of methodology and not a challenge to Global Warming.
and
Reconciling observations of global temperature change --Appears to indeed challenge Global Warming, but unfortunately relies on what is now regarded as a faulty dataset from Mississippi State (that has since been corrected) cited in the Lindzen's article as:
Christy, J. R., R. W. Spencer, and W. D. Braswell, MSU Tropospheric tem-peratures Data set construction and radiosonde comparisons, J. Atmos.Oceanic Tech., 17, 1153–1170, 2000.
This doesn't meet the "sound" requirement by Valentinian.
...that chapter lays out, for peer review...
You may not be aware of this, but that's not how peer review works. Peer review means that research proposed for publication is reviewed before publication. It doesn't mean printing a bunch of speculation and then sitting back with your feet on your desk saying "prove me wrong."
If I'm not mistaken, Michaels has authored no peer-reviewed publications on climate change. Perhaps you can show otherwise.
Rusty,
Good point. I cannot tell you what all has been written and/or peer reviewed. I only started reading this book that he edited. I make no claim to be an expert in this area. In fact, I am just the opposite.
However, it looks to me like the first chapter I described was in fact peer-reviewed. It is an interesting article because it describes the actual process of how the original article was in effect, reviewed by the man who wrote the study. It also explains the problems with the so called "peer review" in that nobody looked at the underlying data and or programs used. In fact much of the data and information remained a secret. So much so that it was very difficult to recreate the results of the original study.
If I remember correctly there is much evidence that although there is global warming going on now, there are also plenty of studies show that it is not increasing at an increasing rate. (That's good news!) Many studies show only a 1 to 1 and half degree rise in the earth's temperature over the next 50-100 years. That is still significant, but not the doomsday scenario some have proposed.
All I would suggest is you read it first and judge for yourself.
However the larger point is if global warming is real, what is causing it. Is it a natural occurence or is it man made? Even if it is all natural, I'm still in favor of conservation. After all, I'm a conservative. :-)
Well, as far as Michaels goes, I reckon I might be inclined to say there's nothing to worry about if I was paid $100,000 by a group who wants folks to think there's nothing to worry about. Probably hard to buy all the stuff you want to buy on an academic's salary.
Rusty,
Do you mind elaborating?
Just click on this link to read the ABC News story about how a Colorado electric cooperative that is adamantly opposed to emissions caps gave Michaels $100,000. Maybe they did it because he's a nice guy. Maybe they did it because $100,000 buys a fair amount of "skepticism." As you might say, read it and decide for yourself.
Russ,
Good point. It says IREA board of directors hired Michaels legally. However the article I cited, (and I'll have to get it and post it later,) was not authored by Michaels. Tell me if I am wrong, but that sort of thing happens all the time in acedemia and business right? I know of one professor who has a business consulting the auto companies. He makes a fortune.
Another point while reading the article is the reference to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,) which used the study by Mann to come up with it's conclusion. The interesting point is that Mann was the lead researcher for IPCC and he used his own study to come to the man made global warming conclusion. Add to it that his study was out of the norm for this analysis and it sounds sounds pretty fishy to me.
Anyway, the point I originally wanted to make is that there are skeptics who are experts in climatology who do not agree with the generally accepted conclusion global warming is man-made. You are free to agree or disagree with any of them.
I know I am contrarian, that is why I like discussing things here. But I am gradually forming an opinion that most of what we read and see coming from the left and mainstream media these days is generally the opposite of what is in fact, reality. ;-) Maybe I'll change my mind later, but for now I am not going to lose any sleep over global warming.
Take care.
The right wouldn't know reality if it hit them over the head. :^) Because they are too stupid. ;^)
It is your choice to believe a handful of carbon industry-funded "skeptics" with questionable credentials over the vast majority of credible scientists. I can't imagine why a rational person, one who isn't blinded by Gore-hatred and/or faith, would do so, but perhaps you just enjoy the warm, cozy feeling of sand all around your head :^D
Rusty,
The truth is the truth. Science is full of skeptics challenging the generally accepted principles and finally being accepted.
Whether (no pun intended) this happens here, remains to be seen. However just because at the moment the numbers skeptics are few, does not diminish their arguments.
If science were simply up to counting how many believed one way or another, it would not be science.
Gotta run. Thanks for the discussion.
I don't think the numbers matter per se, I think it's the quality of their science. If I see some solid research done that calls a significant part of the consensus into question, I'll certainly change my perspective.
However just because at the moment the numbers skeptics are few, does not diminish their arguments.
True. Their arguments are diminished by their lack of credibility in the scientific community, not their low numbers. If their arguments were good, they'd be absorbed into mainstream science. As it stands, the deniers are becoming increasingly marginalized.
For those interested, the book I'm referring to is called "Shattered Consensus", Edited by Patrick J. Michaels, and the article is: Chapter 2, The Mann et al. Norhern Hemisphere "Hockey Stick" Climate Index: A tale of Due Diligence by Ross McKtrick and Stephen McIntyre.
"Even if it is all natural, I'm still in favor of conservation." -aa
I agree 100%. I think that is a much better way to frame the argument as well. It should be a strategic goal to reduce our reliance on foreign petroleum and consequently our CO2 emissions.
Rusty,
It bothered me that a professor would have not peer reviewed work so I did a quick search. If you go to the University of Virginia's website and search for Michael's you'll find the following. Judge for yourself.
Hux, J.D., P.C. Knappenberger, P.J. Michaels, and P.J. Stenger. 2001. Development of a discriminant analysis mixed precipitation (DAMP) forecast model for mid-Atlantic winter storms. Weather and Forecasting 16:248-259.
Knappenberger, P.C., P.J. Michaels and R.E. Davis. 2001. The Nature of Observed Temperature Changes Across the United States During the 20th Century. Climate Research 17:45-53.
Michaels, P.J., and R.C. Balling, Jr. 2000. The Satanic Gases. Cato Books, Washington DC. 234 pp.
Michaels, P.J. and P.C. Knappenberger. 2000. Natural signals in the MSU lower tropospheric temperature record. Geophysical Research Letters 27:2905-2908.
Michaels, P.J., P.C. Knappenberger, R.C. Balling, Jr., and R.E. Davis. 2000. Observed warming in cold anticyclones. Climate Research 14:1-6.
Michaels, P.J., P.C. Knappenberger, and R.E. Davis. 2000. The way of warming. Regulation 33:10-16.
Davis, R.E., P.J. Michaels, and B.P. Hayden. 2000. Overview of Extratropical Cyclones. Pages 401-426 in R. Pielke, Jr. and R. Pielke, Sr., eds., Storms, Volume I. Routledge, New York, New York.
Balling, R., M.C. MacCracken, P.J. Michaels, and A. Robock. 2000. Assessment of uncertainties of predicted global change modelling. Technology 7S:231-257.
Hansen, J.E. and P.J. Michaels. 2000. AARST Science Policy Forum, New York. Social Epistemology 14:133-186.
Michaels, P.J., and R.C. Balling, Jr. 1999. Global warming: The political science of exaggeration. Prometheus 1, 63-70.
He certainly has done peer-reviewed work, as any academic must do to keep his job. He has done peer-reviewed work on climatology, which is his field. However, I do not believe he has done peer-reviewed work that disproves global climate change.
It appears from his CV that his "skepticism" on global climate change has not been peer-reviewed, but rather published by the Cato Institute and Prometheus.
Actually significant problems have been detected in some of Michael's research particularly his paper entitled, A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data* published in Climate Research (2004), but unfortunately not before the journal was was printed.To its credit an article critical of the findings was by Benestad in the same journal. While the process of peer reviewis necessary to assure some degree of credibility it is notsufficient where it fails due to sloppiness or inattentiveness. It is also only prudent to recognize that Michaels' paper was handled by none other than Chris DeFreitas, and editor of Climate Research since 1996. Both Michaels and Defreitas have been funded indirectly by Exxon. Defreitas' tenure at Climate Research has been particuarly problematic. In short peer review is necessary but not sufficient.
"...funded indirectly by Exxon."
I don't suppose that would that be the same ExxonMobil that showed record earnings last year of 39.5 billion dollars, up from 36.5 billion dollars the previous year? The same ExxonMobil who had The American Enterprise Institute (Lynne Cheney's group!) offering cash incentives to scientists to say things helpful to its campaign to pour cold water (pardon the pun) on global warming?
Every person receives money from somewhere.
Therefore, by your definition (the popular one here), all endeavor is tainted by money, no endeavor is pure.
It's hopeless.
Where is the profit in promoting global warming? Are you contending it is nearly as profitable to be a global warming proponent as it is to be a skeptic?
If getting money from Exxon isn't such a bad thing, why do these skeptics frequently deny it (even when there is proof of it) and try to hide the source of their funding?
I usually tend to dismiss the "follow the money" arguments most of the time, but in this case, only one side of the argument has an apparently clear self-serving agenda. Unless you can explain all of the money to be made being a proponent of Global Warming, I am affraid you are making a baseless false equivalency.
blueneck,
I'm not doubting you but it would be interesting in this discussion, for you to substantiate your claims. It is easy to say there are problems and that someone is "indirectly funded" but you really need more than that. Otherwise anyone can say anything. Can you provide links and/or references?
Thanks
Links:
Click the links I provided in the entry above. They are there. I never post on factual matters without providing documentation.
Thanks for pointing out your sources. I should have seen it.
No doubt the person who's weblog you referenced has a problem with McKitrick.
However, (and correct me if I am wrong,) the reference you gave is not replying to the article I mentioned.
I tried accessing the comments, but kept getting timed out.
Jerry Falwell says global warming is a myth.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/jerry-falwell-on-global-w_b_42133.html
Al Gore, who is/was a politician feels strongly that global warming is not a political issue, but that it's a moral issue... in effect, he contemplates what are our moral obligations to the world and to future generations. Jerry Falwell, who is a religious leader and purported moralist, says global warming is purely a political issue, driven by people who don't share his political ideology, while he completely sidesteps even any possible moral or ethical considerations. Go figure...
The Rev. Jerry Falwell telling the scientific community that they believe a myth? Talk about Irony 101!
LeatherHead,
While your finding any of the "thousands" of scientist that dispute global warming, please cite just one scientific journal from the 70's that predicts the coming Global Ice Age - Newsweek is not a scientific journal. It is just more right-wing BS that 'scientists' back then were all warning of the coming freeze. It was only a couple, and their peers remained unconvinced.
An inconvenient truth:
Al Gore was not nominated for any academy award.
Al Gore did not win any academy award.
Neither did you! No point given, no point made.
- former Vice President Al Gore, the film's narrator, accepting the award for Best Documentary Feature during the Academy Awards - mmfa
Al Gore was not nominated for any academy award.
Al Gore did not win any academy award.
No points need to be scored...Al Gore didn't win anything.
Good work Wesley. Gore did not technically accept the award. He was invited to the stage by the "receivers" of the award (or whatever they are called instead of "winners").
Any suggestion that Gore, himself, received the award is false.
If you think you have proved something, you're wrong. MMfA accurately reported that he accepted an award, he did. It did not, as you suggest, say he was nominated or won. This is rather lazy of you and illustrates how illogical most of your opinions are.
How come my right-leaning fellow citizens refuse to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" or "Fahrenheit 9/11"? I mean, I sat through "Bill Clinton's Rise To Power" and didn't go blind ...
Does it really matter what we feel about global warming and isn't it simply a prudent thing to do to assume we have to curb our carbon emmissions anyway? It's obvious that if people are paid enough and they want to continue to get paid they will pose as a scientist with evidence against what is now considered common knowledge. It's also possible that the consensus is wrong, dead wrong. Who care's? There is no benefit to us as a species to continue to pour carbon into the air whether the sky is falling or not. The only reason to continue to do so is for the purpose of greed that will benefit greatly a few at the expense of the many. Stossel is a fascist. He and Beck are more concerned about a companies right to make a buck over our right to breath clean aire and drink clean water.
Ha, I was so pi$$ed at Stossel from another thread I inserted it here. Apologies.
May I first say that LeatherHelmet seems to only speak in HEADLINES and always adds YEAST to his stories.
Concerning Global Warming..I submit that the Insurance Companies are very interested in the suggestion that Global Warming is NOT a myth. These brokers of power realize that their industry could be at the forefront of the financial burdens when this begins to take its' toll. I suggest that we all look towards the Insurance Companies to take the lead to substantiate truth or fiction. The MONEY will talk..let's just hope it speaks the truth.
Gore is ten times the winner those guys are.
As is Nader, whithout actually ever having to win...
The biggest loser is Heidi Collins for her choice of words. She must not remember that V-P Al Gore was the winner in the popular vote during the 2000 presidential election. Shame on you Heidi! You should know better.
he also won in Fla, until the SC stepped in and denied Fla the right to run it's own election by it's own laws.
No doubt the person who's weblog you referenced has a problem with McKitrick.
Actually the problem is not with McKitrick but rather with the botched math in the paper he coauthored with Michaels (the link to the paper and the one published in rebuttal is in my first post). The original weblog material is actually from Real Climate but is a little hard to find on the page hence the weblog citation. But my purpose here is not to do a point by point rebuttal of the work of Michaels or any of the other climate change skeptics. That would be far too much work and no one here is interested. Instead what I wanted to establish is that the peer review process, difficult and flawed as it may be, is about all we have if we are to hope for credibility. When the process becomes corrupted, as I believe it was in connection with the Michaels article cited earlier we have a real problem. Here we have an Editor who receives indirect funding from ExxonMobil handling a paper co-authored by two scientists also funded indirectly by ExxonMobil which somehow makes it through a peer review process despite being flawed by basic mathematical misunderstandings. Patricks and his associates had the audacity to bill the paper thus:
After four years of one of the most rigorous peer reviews ever, Canadian Ross McKitrick and another of us (Michaels) published a paper searching for “economic” signals in the temperature record...etc. etc.
Let's just say that a little more circumpection would not have hurt. And as I mentioned in my first post the journal Climate Research has a history of problems stemming from conflicts of interest. This perhaps explains it's rather weak "Impact Factor" compared to other journals in the same field.
Is Exxon entitled to have its scientists develop contrary evidence? Sure. But that is not what they are doing. The purpose of The Global Climate Science Team formed in 1998 is to discredit the scientific consensus opinion that greenhouse gases are warming the planet. One member of the "team" was Steven Milloy who heads a nonprofit organization called the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. That organization was secretly formed in 1993 by Philip Morris for the purpose of creating uncertainty about the health hazards of second hand smoke. There is no small irony in that in my opinion. You will see Milloy in there with Michaels and McKitrick in that Pdf I linked in my first posting. As for the paper you just mentioned in your post, I'm not sure which one you mean but, I assume it might be Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance. If so, you might want to look this "Dummies Guide" to the latest Hockey Stick controversy"provided by the folks at Real Climate. Since people around here can be a little touchy at times I want to clarify--that is a title not an insult.
blueneck,
Thanks for the link. I took a look. Then I took a look at McKitrick's website and found the following that I did not see it discussed in the dummy's guide.
The argument that our work "doesn't matter" hinges on 2 points: (a) if MBH use 5 (instead of 2) PCs, they can salvage a hockey stick, and (b) there are many independent studies that also yield a hockey stick. Point (a) is treated in our Environment and Energy paper. The issue is robustness. If a low-order PC, representing less than 8% of the explained variance in a single regional proxy network, is going to be allowed to overturn the conclusion that would be indicated by the entire rest of the data set, why even include the rest of the data? In MBH98 it is just there for show, to create the illusion of a hemispheric data base, while the final results are simply the imprint of a sample of bristlecones (dubious as temperature proxies) from western USA. Point (b) is also discussed in our E&E article, but Steve is also demolishing it at greater length at his Weblog--which by the way is well worth visiting regularly.
----
So it is an interesting question to say the least.
As alreay mentioned I don't want to get sidetracked by getting involved in a discussion of the "Hockey Stick" representation of the data. This is a peripheral issue. The point I wanted to raise is thatthere is substantial evidence (which I have provided in my links) that the "peer review" process itself has been corrupted(to the detrement of the reputation of some journals) by conflicts of interest pervading both scientific research and the publication of findings. ExxonMobil has been a "prime mover" in creating this problem and far too many of the "climate change skeptics" have been beneficiaries of monies paid to the various non-profitsinvoved. The bulk of your post is a quote lifted from McKitrick however the link he provided does not take one directly to a paper. Instead it takes you to the Website of Multi-Science Publishing Co. Ltd. where I can only assume he meant us to look at The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications. I see no paper entitled "Environment and Energy", unless he is referring to the journal "Energy and Environment"which is a social science journal whose manifold problems are discussed in links in my first post. As for McKitrick's claim that Steve McIntyre is "busy demolishing" anyone's scientific arguments well, as mentioned before, a little more circumspection would not be inappropriate, especially given that McIntyre is not really a scientist. For a debunking of the debunking check this page at Real Climate. While "scientific truth" is never a settled matter methodolgies can be corrupted by economic, political, or other external considerations. In this case there is considerable support for the argument that this is precisely what has occurred.
EXXON/Mobil, which sported $40 BILLION in profit last quarter, has offered a $10,000 "bonus" to any scientist who will produce a paper which contradicts any aspect of the "global warming" case.
This means EXXON/Mobile can be expected to produce 4 MILLION such papers, all bought and paid for, without breaking a sweat. Hell, some of them MIGHT even be "peer reviewed".
So, what's the count up to now? How many "scientists" have risen to the bait and the challenge of producing propaganda for cash?
Tex,
It seemed to me that whoever put this website together purposely made it look as if the oil companies exerted undue influence. It would be more enlightening if there were some place where one could figure out if this is the norm, or as many here like to think, some sinister conspiracy by those evil oil companies.
Yes and no, to a degree AA.
(Like the claim made by drug companies, that the cost of drugs is so high due to research and development. When in fact the vast majority of research is done at colleges and universities, and used by the companies to create "new" drugs.)
In our current system, many large companies "hire" either directly or indirectly groups of scientists, for the sole goal of creating research to back them up in court (if it should come to that). (see the tabacco post above, and also listen to the testimony given atthe trials). The studies don't even need to be factual or peer-reviewed, as long as it causes doubt (see the number of posters here, arguing against global warming, and citing sources in opinion pieces and books published (but not peer-reviewed)).
I would post more, but I'm late to class and need to run (I'll post some links after classes today.)
Do as I say...not as I do...Al sure is a shining example:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/27/D8NIGG3O0.html
Hypocrisy is thy name...
Gore's response to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research smear.
WOW! A get of jail free card! Where do I sign up to get mine? I especially like #2:
"2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:
Oh, one more thing. How is this a smear? The Gore mansion uses more electricity in one month than the average American home uses in a year. No smear in that. Just plain facts. It's in the public record. Can't hide it.
No amount of "offsets" purchased will change that either.
Angry that you couldn't back up your Dr. Lindzen claims, so now you're left with "Gore's a hypocrite." 'kay.
I posted the link that was asked for. Now I'm hearing that that is not good enough. Peer reviewed articles from Stanford University's library just don't cut it.
I get the feeling if Dr. L posted on this forum it would not be good enough. I notice neither you nor Open put much effort into actually rebutting the issue, just that "it's not enough", or "how do I know that's out of SU's library".
You gents can do better than that. I still stand by hypocrite thy name is Al though. Six months after his power-point slide show, he decides he better green up the mansion before the naysayers find out. Whoops! Too late for that.
"I notice neither you nor Open put much effort into actually rebutting the issue"--hogprint
I agree. It didn't require "much effort" to rebut your non-existant argument.
Not only that, Rusty, in what can only be viewed as a blatant effort in dishonesty, Hogprint tag-teamed with LeatherHelmet to put words in Al Gore's mouth. Hogprint never backed that up either despite the repeated unsuccessful requests of myself and others.
"How is this a smear?" --hogprint
The press release is a one sided account most likely intended to mislead an audience into false conclusions. Of course, I don't kid myself that you need any help in doing that.